Evidence gaps for completion registers
What to keep, and what an auditor asks for instead of a vague promise.
Article 4 asks deployers to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy among staff. The gap in most organisations is not the training — it is the evidence that the training happened, to whom, and what it covered.
What to keep
The curriculum (what was taught, mapped to roles), the audience record (which roles and people, by date), the content itself (versioned, so "what changed" is answerable), and the completion evidence (what each audience actually finished).
Why attendance is weakest
An attendance sheet proves presence in a room. It does not prove which curriculum version was delivered, whether the person was in the right audience, or what changed since. It is the artefact most teams have and the one that answers least.
What an auditor asks
Not "did you train people" but "show me the plan, the audience, the content, and the dates — and show me what changed when the system changed."
How the tool lists gaps
It drafts the plan with the evidence list attached, so the missing artefact is visible at plan time rather than at audit time.
Decision-support drafting only — not legal advice. Confirm the duty set against the current consolidated text of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.