Muster Maschinenbau GmbH
Status: first structures exist, but key evidence, supplier information and AI literacy documentation are still missing.
What the sample report immediately shows
- which AI use cases are known
- where personal data, customer data or business information may be involved
- which supplier information is missing
- whether AI literacy activities are documented
- which questions should later be clarified with legal, data protection or compliance
- which first actions are useful within 30, 60 and 90 days
Before the Lite Version: AI is used, but not centrally structured.
Muster Maschinenbau GmbH uses generative AI for sales texts, service summaries, technical documentation and internal research. Several teams already work productively with AI tools. At the same time, there is no central AI inventory, no consistent supplier overview and no documented AI literacy activity.
This is where the Lite Version starts: it does not create a final legal assessment, but an initial working structure.
The company receives
- an initial AI system overview
- a readiness score
- a list of missing information
- an evidence matrix
- a supplier questionnaire
- an AI literacy documentation template
- a 30/60/90-day plan
- questions for legal, data protection and compliance
Questions asked in the Lite process
The Lite Version does not require confidential document uploads. It first structures basic information that is often distributed across the organisation or not documented at all.
- Which AI tools are currently used in which departments?
- Are personal data, customer data or internal business information entered?
- Is there already an AI policy or usage rules?
- Is there a person responsible for AI governance?
- Are training or awareness records available?
- Are external AI suppliers used?
- Is there any HR, recruiting, scoring, safety or product context?
- Are decisions prepared or made automatically?
- Is there human oversight?
- Which supplier information is already available?
- Which evidence is missing?
- Which questions should later be clarified with legal, data protection or compliance?
Scattered tools become an initial AI inventory.
The table shows how the Lite Version structures AI use. The full customer version also includes exportable working data.
| AI use | Department | Data relevance | Control | Open point |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales text generation | Sales | Customer and product information possible | human approval | AI usage rules missing |
| Service ticket summarisation | Customer service | personal data possible | partial review | supplier information missing |
| Technical documentation support | Engineering | internal business information | expert review | confidentiality rules to check |
| Internal AI research | Management / assistant | mixed internal data | not consistent | training and logging to clarify |
Readiness profile of the sample company
The score is not a legal assessment. It shows how well the basics for a later review are prepared.
Open evidence in the example
- central AI inventory
- internal AI policy or usage rules
- AI literacy records
- supplier information on data processing and training
- responsible role or person for AI governance
- process for approval, oversight and incidents
- documentation of human oversight
What should be requested from AI suppliers
Many companies use external AI tools. The Lite Version therefore includes questions that can be addressed to suppliers, SaaS providers or model providers.
It asks, for example, about
- data processing
- training use
- storage locations
- security documents
- technical documentation
- contact person
- model information
- roles in the AI Act context
The sample report shows concrete follow-up requests, not only problems.
| Evidence / information | Status in example | Why it matters | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI inventory | missing | Basis for role, risk and data review | Capture AI systems in the light template |
| AI literacy record | not documented | Preparation around Article 4 and internal awareness | Start 30-minute briefing |
| Supplier information | partly unclear | Data, training, security and responsibilities | Send supplier questionnaire |
| AI policy | not available | Usage rules, approvals and boundaries | Agree basic internal rules |
| Human oversight | partly available | Important for AI-supported work processes | Document control points |
Questions for legal, data protection and compliance
The Lite Version helps prepare later expert discussions. The sample report generates questions such as:
- Which AI systems require deeper review first?
- Which role does the company have per system: provider, deployer or both?
- Which data may employees enter into external AI tools?
- Which transparency or information duties may become relevant?
- Which supplier information is indispensable for later review?
- Are there high-risk indicators that require deeper analysis?
30/60/90-day plan
The sample report is only an excerpt.
The full Lite Version also includes PDF, DOCX, HTML working version, CSV lists, source list, evidence documents and templates. It shows enough to understand the value without giving away the complete internal methodology.