Amendment 13 is active. AI decisions are being reviewed. The question is no longer only whether AI was used — it is whether responsible human judgment can be shown in a reviewable record.
Boards hold personal accountability for data protection practices — including AI systems that process personal data. The Privacy Protection Authority has published draft guidance on AI-related obligations (April 2025) and is moving to active enforcement in 2026.
Article 14 requires that high-risk AI systems be designed and deployed to allow meaningful human oversight — not passive monitoring, but the ability to understand, intervene, and correct. The EU extended the high-risk compliance timeline; the window to build this correctly is now. Article 50 (transparency requirements) applies from August 2026. High-risk oversight obligations under Article 14 apply from December 2027.
AI audit trails, model monitoring, and risk dashboards document what the AI did. They do not document what the human decided. A log entry that says «reviewed» is not evidence of meaningful review. A policy that says «humans oversee» is not a record of oversight. Regulators are beginning to draw this distinction.
Not a log of AI activity. Not a policy document. A record of the human: who reviewed, what they considered, what they decided — in a form designed to support later review by governance, regulatory, legal, or institutional stakeholders.
It is not a screen capture. It is not a checkbox. It is a structured entry that records what a human decision-maker reviewed, where the boundary was set, and what was recorded as their decision within the stated integrity model.
Caneni does not infer attention, understanding, judgment quality, or oversight adequacy from behavioural telemetry.
Caneni records attributable human action and stated responsibility; it does not score people, certify correctness, or turn process evidence into surveillance.
Integrity claims are scoped: a record can be made reviewable and tamper-evident for a stated environment, not impossible to forge in every context.
Map the AI-assisted decisions in your workflow that carry regulatory, legal, or reputational weight — credit decisions, risk assessments, compliance determinations, medical or legal recommendations.
At each decision point, a structured prompt asks the accountable human to confirm review and record their judgment — not a checkbox, but a timestamped entry of what was reviewed, where the boundary was set, and what was recorded as their decision.
The proposed arrangement keeps the participation record alongside the AI workflow. In the tested prototype, time is registered by the Caneni service. Independent time attestation is a separate capability and is not presented here as implemented. Integrity and selective access remain scoped to the stated environment.
When a regulator, auditor, or legal proceeding asks «who was the decision-maker, and when did they decide?» — the answer is a dated, structured record, not a policy document or a system log.
If your board is reviewing AI accountability obligations — or if a regulator, auditor, or legal proceeding has raised questions about human oversight — a brief, confidential conversation is the right next step.
Or write directly: hello@caneni.net
Working core prototype · conversations confidential · project brief available on request.
Full methodology: canon.caneni.net
← Back to Caneni
