EU AI ACT / ARTICLE 50(4) / TAKES EFFECT 2 AUGUST 2026

Human content review and Article 50(4) compliance evidence for AI-generated text.

We do the actual review. We produce the documented evidence. You get an audit-ready compliance file you can hand to any regulator, enterprise customer, or auditor. Founded by a doctor, run by human reviewers who read every article and document every review.

Book a 15-minute scoping call See pricing

Built on the EU AI Office's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. Founding customer cohort opening Q2 2026. Procedure document available on request. We are not a law firm.

60 SECONDS / 3 QUESTIONS

Does Article 50(4) apply to your content?

A free, three-question scope check. No email required. Nothing leaves your browser. The result is yours to keep.

Q1 Do you publish text content that is written or co-written by an AI system (LLM, chatbot, automated generation, or any model)?

Yes, regularly. Some of it. No, our content is entirely human-written.

Q2 Is that content intended to inform the public on matters of public interest — news, analysis, commentary, industry insight, or educational material?

Yes. No, it is commercial or marketing content. No, it is private or internal.

Q3 Is any of your audience in the European Union?

Yes, substantial EU readership. Yes, some EU readers. No EU audience at all.

Answer all three to see the result.

This is an indicative scope check, not a legal opinion. Definitive determination requires reviewing your specific publishing model, audience composition, and content type against Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. We are not a law firm.

APPLICABLE 2 AUGUST 2026

Your content, with and without a documented review procedure.

Same article. Same newsroom. Same AI assistance. The only difference is whether the paper trail exists when a regulator asks for it.

Without the exemption

AI-Generated Content Disclosure This article was produced with the assistance of an artificial intelligence system. It has not been documented as qualifying for the human review exemption under Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Ref: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 · Code of Practice on Marking and Labelling, 2026

WHO Europe Records 18 Percent Rise in Adult Measles Cases Across Member States in First Quarter 2026

By Niamh Fitzgerald · Copenhagen · 14 May 2026 · 4 min read

The World Health Organization's European regional office recorded 12,407 confirmed measles cases in the first quarter of 2026, an 18 percent increase over the same period in 2025 and the highest first-quarter figure since regional surveillance began, according to a briefing released Tuesday.

The rise is concentrated among adults aged 25 to 44, a demographic the regional office attributes to waning vaccine immunity and low booster uptake. Romania, France, and the Netherlands together account for roughly 61 percent of the reported cases, with smaller clusters in the Western Balkans.

Officials are calling for targeted adult booster campaigns in countries where MMR coverage has slipped below 90 percent, alongside stronger surveillance of community transmission in urban centres...

With the exemption

WHO Europe Records 18 Percent Rise in Adult Measles Cases Across Member States in First Quarter 2026

By Niamh Fitzgerald · Copenhagen · 14 May 2026 · 4 min read

Officials are calling for targeted adult booster campaigns in countries where MMR coverage has slipped below 90 percent, alongside stronger surveillance of community transmission in urban centres...

Left: the disclosure bar your legal team drafts when they cannot point a regulator at a documented human review procedure.

Right: no disclosure bar. Not because the content is different. Because the paper trail exists.

Honest footnote The hazard bar shown above is not an EU-mandated graphic. The Code of Practice on Marking and Labelling of AI-Generated Content does not prescribe a specific visual for text disclosure. It prescribes that disclosure must be clear, distinguishable, and unambiguous. Publishers that cannot demonstrate a documented human review procedure under Article 50(4) will have to self-implement disclosure that meets those constraints. This mockup is what that typically looks like after legal sign-off. The masthead, byline, and article content are fictional.

THE GAP

The EU AI Act applies to your content. You probably do not have a compliance answer.

01 / EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH

It applies even if you are not in Europe.

Article 50(4) attaches to AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. If your content reaches EU users, you are in scope. There is no carve-out for non-EU publishers, and the regulation tracks the audience, not the office address.

02 / THE DEADLINE

The transparency obligation takes effect 2 August 2026.

From that date, AI-generated text in scope must either be labelled as artificially generated, or fall under the human review exemption. Article 99 penalties run up to EUR 15M or 3 percent of global annual turnover. Reputational exposure exceeds the fine.

03 / NO OPERATIONAL TOOLING

System-level GRC vendors do not cover content.

Vanta and Drata cover SOC 2. Delve and Holistic AI cover the AI system. Nobody covers the article. There is no off-the-shelf product for "human reviewed this piece, here is the reviewer, here is the procedure, here is the evidence." That is the gap we close.

WHAT YOU GET

An audit-ready compliance file. Reviewed by named humans.

A continuing subscription that delivers the four documentation components an Article 50(4) human review claim is built on. Available on request to any regulator, customer, or auditor.

01 / PROCEDURE

Human Review Procedure

A written procedure document, customized to your publishing workflow, versioned and dated. The artefact a regulator asks for first. Editorial responsibility sits with you, noted as a clause in the service agreement.

02 / ATTESTATION LOG

Per-article attestation log

One signed attestation entry per article, with reviewer name, credentials, timestamp, methodology version, and a hash that lets a third party verify integrity.

03 / REVIEW SUMMARIES

Monthly review summary emails

A monthly summary tying together the procedure version in force, reviewer credentials, and the attestation entries from that period. Delivered to your inbox.

04 / VAULT

Customer compliance vault

A secured store of every artefact above, queryable by article ID, exportable as a PDF package, retained for the regulatory limitation period. Annual audit-ready bundle included.

SAMPLE ATTESTATION ENTRY

ATTESTATION_LOG / v1.0
ARTICLE_ID          : ART-2026-00471
CUSTOMER            : [REDACTED PUBLISHER]
REVIEWER            : K. Iyer, MBBS, Reviewer
REVIEW_TIMESTAMP    : 2026-04-07T11:42:18Z
METHODOLOGY_VERSION : ERP-2026-Q2.1
EDITORIAL_RESP      : Customer-side (per service agreement)
ATTESTATION_HASH    : 8a4f1c77e93b6d0e2a5c8f1b9d4e7a02

THE WORKFLOW

Five steps from intake to attestation.

A continuing service, not a one-time audit. Every article in scope flows through the same five steps before it publishes.

STEP 01

Scoping call

A 15-minute conversation to confirm you are in scope, identify which content surfaces are covered, and confirm the editorial responsibility clause in your service agreement.

STEP 02

Procedure customization

We adapt the standard Human Review Procedure to your publishing workflow, sign-off chain, and tooling. You get a versioned PDF and a markdown source.

STEP 03

Article intake

You submit articles via the intake endpoint (web, email, or API) before publication. Each piece is logged with a unique ID, source, intended publication date, and audience.

STEP 04

Human review

A named reviewer reads the article. That read-through is recorded with the reviewer's name, credentials, timestamp, and article reference.

STEP 05

Attestation and delivery

A signed attestation is generated, hashed, written to your compliance vault, and returned to you. The article is cleared to publish under the Article 50(4) human review exemption.

See the full seven-step workflow ->

WHY Sygil

Why publishers choose Sygil.

Three things that no general compliance vendor, no AI detection tool, and no editorial agency can credibly offer in the same package.

REAL REVIEWERS

Named, credentialed, on the record.

Every reviewer assigned to your account is a named natural person with verifiable credentials and a signed reviewer agreement on file. Not a model. Not an offshore mystery box. Real names a regulator can phone.

SPECIFIC REGULATION

We do Article 50(4). That is the entire product.

We do not sell general AI governance, model risk audits, or system-level posture management. One regulation, one obligation, one deliverable. The narrowness is the moat.

FOUNDER IS A DOCTOR

A documented read-through that makes your editorial responsibility defensible.

You retain editorial responsibility under the Code of Practice. Our documented human read-through gives you the evidence trail that makes that responsibility defensible when a regulator asks. Our founder is an MD. The reviewer network is real. Regulated verticals reward this in a way no SaaS competitor can copy.

THE WHY-NOW

Your enterprise customers are about to start asking.

EU enterprise procurement teams are already adding AI content questions to vendor questionnaires. Banks, pharma, media holding groups, and government tenders cite the AI Act in their 2026 vendor reviews. By Q3 2026 these questions are standard. A vendor who cannot answer them loses the deal, slows the renewal, and triggers a legal escalation every time. A vendor who can answer in one page closes faster. That one page is what we produce.

SAMPLE VENDOR QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE
Q14. DESCRIBE YOUR HUMAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR AI-GENERATED CONTENT.

A.   All AI-assisted text published on our properties is reviewed
     by a credentialed human reviewer prior to publication. Review
     methodology is documented in our Human Review Procedure
     v1.0 (Sygil, 2026). Per-article attestations are
     maintained in our compliance vault and are available on request
     under NDA. Editorially responsible person on file.

See sample vendor questionnaire responses ->

PRICING

Pick a plan that matches your publishing volume.

Annual subscriptions, volume-based plans, transparent pricing. No fake discounts, no countdown timers. Full feature matrix and Enterprise plan on the pricing page.

STARTER

$5,000

per year, billed annually

Up to 60 articles per year. For solo operators, niche newsletters, and small content teams who need a defensible compliance file without enterprise overhead.

Up to 60 articles per year
Per-article attestation PDFs
Standard procedure document
Monthly review summary emails
Annual audit-ready bundle
5 business day turnaround

Choose Starter

STANDARD

$9,000

per year, billed annually

Up to 150 articles per year. For mid-market content teams and regulated-vertical publishers. The most common plan for our founding customer cohort.

Up to 150 articles per year
Human read-through on all articles
Public verification page (opt-in)
Monthly review summary emails
3 business day turnaround
Quarterly compliance posture call

Choose Standard

PREMIUM

$24,000

per year, billed annually

Up to 400 articles per year. For publishers at scale, healthcare and finance operators, and teams preparing for enterprise procurement gates.

Up to 400 articles per year
Human read-through on all articles
Custom procedure document
Multi-framework attestation (NIST AI RMF or ISO 42001)
2 business day turnaround
Dedicated lead reviewer
Monthly review summary emails

Choose Premium

Publishing more than 400 articles a year? See the full feature matrix and Enterprise plan ->

Get a compliance answer before 2 August 2026.

Fifteen minutes on the phone. We confirm whether you are in scope, which plan matches your volume, and what the first 30 days look like. No commitment.

Book a 15-minute scoping call

15 minutes. No commitment. We will tell you if you are out of scope.