When you sign your name, mean it.
You have to know which rules apply, who owns each one, and what proves it. Then keep that current as your systems, vendors and models change.
Dokeo runs all of it in one place. Obligations, evidence, owners and decisions stay linked, so you see what needs attention and sign on a record that holds.
Know what you can prove, and what you can't yet.
Take FIND-0142 below. An oversight SOP and a countersigned escalation runbook are enough to say oversight is defined and assigned. Neither shows anyone exercising it in production, so Dokeo holds that claim back and names the log that would settle it.
“Human oversight is defined and assigned.”
- Oversight SOP v2 · §3 roles & escalation
- Escalation runbook · countersigned
“Oversight is continuously exercised in production.”
Compliance is the same three jobs, cycle after cycle.
The judgment is why you were hired, and it should stay with you. The rest is what eats the quarter: re-keying the same figures into three systems, chasing a vendor twice for a policy that turns out to be superseded, then reconstructing what actually moved since the last review.
Document analysis
Read and pull what matters from IDs, contracts, policies, model cards, and financial statements.
Manual review
Weigh it against the rule set. Decide whether what you have is actually enough to support the claim.
Monitoring
Re-open the case later and see what has moved since.
Dokeo does the fetching and the cross-referencing, and holds the evidence in one place.
Your time goes to the exceptions.
One shape across: KYC / AML onboarding · vendor due diligence · audit fieldwork · AI governanceFrom your documents to defensible findings.
An auditor will not take your word for it, and a regulator certainly will not. Dokeo runs each review as a case against the rulebook you pick. For every conclusion it keeps the document, the section it came from, and the reason attached to it.
This evidence supports X. It does not support Y. To claim Y, request Z. The defensible finding is A, not B.
And this is what that looks like to work in.
Start a case, pick the framework, set the scope, connect your systems, and see what needs attention. Six steps, and you drive them.
The case pins the framework version and the period, so next quarter's review can be compared against this one rather than replacing it.
A review is a case, not a folder. It pins the framework version and the period it covers, so the same review can be reopened next quarter and compared.
Sample data. Nothing you do here is stored or sent anywhere.
From hope-based to provable.
- Findings live in fourteen emails, three spreadsheets, and someone’s memory.
- “Looks fine. Probably fine. We’ll find out in the audit.”
- You carry the risk of every gap you couldn’t see.
- One case: evidence and claim in the same place.
- “Supported by Oversight SOP §3. Re-checkable by replay.”
- Bring on the audit.
One engine, every framework.
Each framework gets broken down to the article once, by hand. After that every case runs through the same machinery, which is why a DORA finding and an AI Act finding are defensible in the same way.
EU AI Act
High-risk obligations across Arts 9-17, 43, 49-72, plus GPAI.
Conformity, end to end
DORA
Operational resilience for financial entities, grounded in EUR-Lex.
6 domains · 35 review items
For the people who put their name on the work.
Your name goes at the bottom of the report. Dokeo assembles the case and flags where the evidence runs thin, so the review you do is the review that carries risk.
Every claim supported, or it doesn't ship.
A living baseline, not a point-in-time snapshot.
Article-level proof, re-checkable by replay.
Ask Dokeo, in plain English.
Sign the next one with confidence.
Bring a review you are actually working on. We will run it as a live case on your own framework, the EU AI Act or DORA, and you can see what the evidence does and does not carry. Nothing you bring leaves the session.
Augment the reviewer. Never replace the sign-off.