Know what you're allowed to build before you build it
Before implementing AI, the question we hear most is: what are we actually allowed to do with our data? Alongside legal specialists, we map GDPR constraints, anonymisation requirements, and which use cases carry legal risk, so your options are clear before anything is built.
Map your constraintsWho it's for
Leadership planning AI initiatives in data-sensitive or regulated contexts who need to know the legal boundaries, and the safe, high-value use cases, before committing budget.
What we deliver
A clear, defensible picture of what you can build, what it takes, and in what order.
Use-case legal mapping
We assess your intended AI use cases against GDPR and the EU AI Act, and tell you which are clear, which need work and which carry real risk.
Data constraint analysis
What you can and cannot do with your specific data (personal data, purpose limitation, retention), mapped to each use case.
Anonymisation & minimisation guidance
Where anonymisation or minimisation unlocks a use case, we specify what that takes in practice, not just in principle.
Risk-ranked roadmap
A prioritised view of use cases by value and legal risk, so you build the safe, high-return ones first.
Architecture implications
How the legal constraints shape the technical design, including when sovereign, self-hosted AI is the answer.
Legal-specialist collaboration
We work alongside legal specialists so the guidance is grounded, not hand-waved: engineering and law in the same room.
How it works
-
Inventory use cases and data
We catalogue what you want to do with AI and the data each use case touches.
-
Map the constraints
Alongside legal specialists, we assess each use case against GDPR and the EU AI Act.
-
Rank by value and risk
We prioritise use cases so the high-value, low-risk ones come first.
-
Design within the lines
We translate constraints into technical requirements, including sovereignty and anonymisation, before anything is built.
-
Hand over a plan
You get a clear, defensible roadmap you can act on and show to auditors.
Proof
In regulated industries the legal constraint is not a final review; it is a design input. We treat it that way from day one, so you don't build something you then have to tear down.
Questions we get asked
Are you lawyers?
No, and that is the point. We work alongside legal specialists, pairing their legal judgment with the engineering reality of what your data and systems actually do. You get guidance that is both legally grounded and technically buildable.
Does the EU AI Act affect us?
Very likely, if you operate in or serve the EU. We map your use cases against the AI Act's risk categories and GDPR together, so you know your obligations before you build.
Why do this before building?
Because the legal constraint is a design input, not a final review. Discovering a use case is non-compliant after you have built it means rebuilding, or shelving it. Mapping it first is far cheaper.
What if a use case isn't allowed?
Often there is a compliant path: anonymisation, minimisation, or a sovereign deployment where data never leaves your environment. We tell you which use cases have one and what it takes.
What do we walk away with?
A risk-ranked roadmap of your AI use cases, the data constraints on each, and the technical implications: a defensible plan you can act on and show to auditors.
Related
Unsure what you're allowed to do with your data?
Get clarity before you build