AI Act risk classification and technical file
Classify one named system against the Article 6 and Annex III tests, then build the technical file that has to exist if it lands in scope.
Brief Exchange · for employers
You get a scoped deliverable reviewed by a senior practitioner before it reaches you, and a shortlist of people you have watched work rather than interviewed. No fee if you hire. The exchange is how the school earns its curriculum.
Typical briefs: an AI Act risk classification, a NIS2 supplier assessment, a dbt model nobody has time to build, a security review of one service.
What it costs you
Scoping the brief and reading the result is the whole commitment. Review happens before it reaches you, so you are not marking anyone's homework.
You write the acceptance criteria, or we write them and you change them. Nobody begins work against a brief you have not agreed.
A senior practitioner in the discipline marks the work against your criteria first. What arrives on your desk has already survived somebody who does this for a living.
You see how someone scopes, asks questions, handles a constraint and takes revision. That is more signal than four interviews. No fee if you hire.
Revision is normal and rejection is possible. A brief that could not be sent back would not be worth anything to either side.
How a posted brief runs
Stage 01
Either write the brief yourself or run the Brief Finder and let it write two or three for you. Ten questions, four minutes, no account.
Stage 02
We turn it into a work order with acceptance criteria, a duration and a named reviewer. Nothing starts until you sign the criteria off.
Stage 03
A learner past the readiness gate does the work against a deadline. Two to six weeks, depending on the brief.
Stage 04
A senior reviewer in your discipline checks it against your criteria and sends it back for revision if it does not meet them.
Stage 05
Accept it, ask for revision, or reject it. If you want to talk to the person who did it, we get out of the way. No fee if you hire.
Drawn from the brief library the Brief Finder writes from. If none of these is your problem, the finder will tell you which two or three are.
Classify one named system against the Article 6 and Annex III tests, then build the technical file that has to exist if it lands in scope.
The supplier risk register the Article 21 supply chain provisions require: dependency mapping, criticality tiering, contractual control review.
One reporting domain currently held together by spreadsheets, rebuilt properly: dimensional model, transformations, tests, documentation.
Identity, network boundaries and secrets across one account, mapped to your control framework, with detection rules for the paths that apply to you.
The questionnaire currently holding up your deal, answered honestly, plus the reusable evidence pack so the next five take a day.
Your capability audited against your roadmap, then the two role scopes that close the biggest gaps — including what can be trained instead.
Ten questions and you leave with two or three briefs written up with acceptance criteria — yours to use however you like, whether or not you ever post one to us.
Outcome figures on this site come from our published cohort reports, with the method and the denominator stated. We do not publish a headline hiring rate without them. Immigration rules on this page are summarised as at July 2026 and change frequently. Nothing here is legal or immigration advice, and we will point you to a regulated adviser for your own case. We are a training provider. We do not guarantee employment or sponsorship, and no course changes your eligibility for a visa.