A FRIA draft is not a legal opinion: what this tool does and does not do

The most useful thing a drafting tool can do is be honest about where it stops. FriaForge produces a structured first draft from the facts you enter: the use case, the affected population, the oversight you have in place, the vendor evidence you hold. It maps those answers onto Art. 27 headings and shows which rule path produced each paragraph.

What it does

• Produces a numbered draft under the Art. 27 headings, so your reviewer is reading a document and not a blank page.
• Records which input produced which paragraph, so a reviewer can trace a statement back to the fact it came from.
• Flags gaps it cannot fill — a missing oversight measure is reported as missing, not written around.
• Refuses to produce a confident answer when the intake is too thin to support one. A short use case fails the gates rather than generating plausible filler.

What it does not do

• It does not decide whether Art. 27 applies to you. That is a legal determination about your entity and your system.
• It does not assess the severity of harm to affected persons. You hold that judgement, with the people who will be affected.
• It does not sign anything off. Nothing in the output is an approval, a conformity statement, or a legal opinion.
• It does not file anything with a supervisory authority.

Why we built it this way

A tool that produced a polished, confident, unreviewable assessment would be worse than no tool. The Art. 27 assessment is a document a reviewer has to be able to disagree with. Draft output that shows its inputs makes that disagreement possible; output that hides them makes it theatre.

Not legal advice. Have counsel review the draft before it is relied on or filed.