Prefer traceable outputs
A useful record links each observation to a product, version, date and source. Evidence repositories, change logs and incident-management tools can support that structure. A coloured dashboard or numerical score is less helpful if the underlying records and assumptions cannot be inspected.
Keep the legal boundary explicit
A tool can identify missing records, questions about actors and relevant sources. It cannot turn a few form answers into a final finding of defectiveness, causation or compensation. Avoid presenting readiness percentages as a legally established risk rating.
Start with a bounded workflow
The current record mapper uses category selections to produce a research checklist. It runs in the browser and supports a local export. It has no account, evidence-upload facility or compensation calculation. Future tools can add records and permissions once their scope and privacy requirements are defined.
Records that help the review
Use the following as a practical starting point. Select and preserve records appropriate to the product, incident and applicable procedure.
- Product identity and version fields
- Source references and explanation of assumptions
- Export and access requirements
- Ownership of outstanding review questions
No tool on this site gives a legal opinion, predicts a court outcome or estimates a settlement.
Primary sources and legal scope
This page explains the EU Directive framework. Check national implementing law, the corrected temporal scope and relevant procedure before applying it to a case.
- Directive (EU) 2024/2853, consolidated text: Articles 4, 8, 9, 10 ↗
- Official Journal corrigendum, 7 May 2026: Article 2(1) ↗
Source register: corrected scope verified 16 October 2026. Article references identify the legal basis. No qualified legal review or national implementation status is claimed.