AI Oversight Depends on Connected Records, TechRadar Contributor Says

As transparency requirements under the EU AI Act take effect, organizations face growing pressure to show how they oversee AI use. A TechRadar Pro Perspectives article by Soniya Bopache argues that monitoring communications alone is not enough: firms also need to show how risks were identified, reviewed and escalated.

The article says compliance teams often have relevant information, but it may be spread across communications platforms, surveillance workflows and investigation records. That fragmentation can make it difficult to reconstruct decisions and provide evidence when regulators ask how a process worked.

Bopache cites research finding that 55% of organizations globally have core AI policies, training and review steps in place, while 19% have the logging, retention, detection and scoring controls needed to prove what happened. The article links that gap to slower investigations and extra manual validation.

It argues that communications surveillance should connect alerts, reviews, investigations, decisions and retained records into a clear evidence trail. Regulators may not prescribe a specific system architecture, the article says, but expect oversight to be effective, repeatable and defensible.

The piece presents surveillance as part of a broader approach to communications governance and regulatory readiness. Its central point is that organizations need to demonstrate how oversight operated over time, rather than merely locate information after a request.

The article is part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives. TechRadar says the views are the author’s and are not necessarily those of TechRadar Pro or Future plc.