# MARKLINE — public claims register

Every public claim used on the marketing site (and intended for outreach) with the source that backs it.
**Rule:** no invented market-size numbers. Prefer Regulation text and reputable legal commentary. Seal reviews before launch.

Last reviewed: 5 Sep 2026.

---

## Timeline & law

| # | Claim (as used publicly) | Source / backing | Notes |
|---|--------------------------|------------------|-------|
| C1 | EU AI Act **Article 50** transparency obligations have applied since **2 August 2026**. | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 application calendar; firm summaries e.g. [Morgan Lewis, 12 Aug 2026](https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2026/08/eu-ai-acts-transparency-rules-what-went-into-effect-on-2-august); [Stibbe Article 50 timeline](https://www.stibbe.com/publications-and-insights/the-ai-acts-transparency-obligations-rules-scope-and-timeline); [artificialintelligenceact.eu Article 50 guide](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/transparency-rules-article-50/). | Site hero + Why now. |
| C2 | For **generative systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026**, grace for **Article 50(2) machine-readable marking / detection** runs until **2 December 2026**. | Same as C1 (Morgan Lewis; Stibbe; artificialintelligenceact.eu). | Deployer duties (e.g. deepfakes, certain public-interest text) are generally **not** deferred by this grace. |
| C3 | Article 50 addresses transparency for (among other things) direct interaction with AI, synthetic content marking, emotion recognition / biometric categorisation, and deepfake / certain public-interest text disclosure. | Art. 50 AI Act; Commission guidelines commentary (July 2026) as summarised by Stibbe, Orrick, KPMG Law. | Site Problem / Why now — high level only. |
| C4 | Providers of generative AI (incl. GPAI generating synthetic audio/image/video/text) must ensure outputs are marked in a **machine-readable** format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated, subject to technical feasibility language in the Act. | Art. 50(2); [Orrick Article 50 map](https://www.orrick.com/en/insights/2026/08/eu-ai-act-transparency-obligations-for-ai-generated-content-article-50). | Do not claim a single mandated watermark standard. |
| C5 | Commission **guidelines** on Article 50 and a **Code of Practice / Code of Conduct** on transparency of AI-generated content support practical interpretation (icons alone do not replace machine-readable marking). | Stibbe (guidelines ~20 Jul 2026); KPMG Law (Code / icons, June 2026); Commission digital-strategy materials on AI-generated content transparency. | Phrase as “supports / reported”; avoid implying mandatory certification by MARKLINE. |
| C6 | Legal commentary cites administrative fines of up to **EUR 15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover** (whichever is higher) for relevant AI Act breaches. | e.g. Stibbe Article 50 overview. | Always caveated: confirm against the Regulation’s fine architecture and competent authorities; MARKLINE does not apply fines to a client’s facts. |

## UK context (careful wording)

| # | Claim | Source / backing | Notes |
|---|--------|------------------|-------|
| C7 | The UK does **not** have a blanket AI-labelling statute equivalent to Article 50; **ASA/CAP** rules still apply to advertising; UK firms with **EU audiences** may still fall within AI Act scope for relevant activities. | UK Parliament research briefings on AI regulation (e.g. Commons Library materials); ASA/CAP AI advertising guidance as covered in trade press. Founder pack cites: [CBP-10467](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10467/). | Do **not** claim automatic UK “Article 50” application. Scope is fact-specific — counsel. |
| C8 | *(Optional, not used on MVP hero)* Public expectation of AI labels has been cited in ICO-related polling / trade press. | Only use if Seal re-checks the primary poll source before quoting numbers. | **Not used** on current `index.html` to avoid weak secondary citation. |

## Product / commercial claims

| # | Claim | Source / backing | Notes |
|---|--------|------------------|-------|
| C9 | **Compliance Sprint** priced **£28,000–£45,000**, **10–20 working days**, with listed outcomes (provider/deployer map, inventory, risk register, playbook, tech plan, board one-pager). | Internal SOW `SPRINT_SOW.md` v0.1 — commercial offer, not a market statistic. | Must match live SOW if price changes. |
| C10 | **Continuum** **£1.2k–£4.5k/mo**; **Agency Desk** **£3k–£8k/mo**. | Founder pack / commercial pricing — not third-party research. | Continuum described as waitlist / beta on site. |
| C11 | Sprint **out of scope** includes legal opinion, guaranteed regulatory clearance, custom foundation models, full Annex III high-risk conformity, wholesale historical archive relabelling (except agreed sample). | `SPRINT_SOW.md`. | Trust section repeats integrity rule. |
| C12 | **“We do not sell guaranteed legal compliance.”** / **Not legal advice.** / Co-brand **MARKLINE by Vertexi5** (product = MARKLINE; legal/commercial = Vertexi5). | Integrity rule (Seal). Footer on every page: MARKLINE by Vertexi5 · Not legal advice. | Non-negotiable. |

## Explicitly **not** claimed on this site

- Any TAM / SAM / SOM or “market will be £X”.
- Guaranteed pass of regulatory audit or enforcement immunity.
- That MARKLINE is a law firm or provides solicitor advice.
- That C2PA / Content Credentials / any single vendor watermark is legally mandated as the only compliant method.
- Countdown “coupon” urgency or false scarcity.

## Site footprint

Claims C1–C6, C7 (careful), C9–C12 appear on `index.html`, `sprint.html`, `continuum.html`, `agency.html`, `about.md`, `llms.txt`, and `llm-full.txt`. Full register: this file.

**SEO / agent layer (2026-09-06):** Organization + ProfessionalService JSON-LD; OG/Twitter summary cards (no fabricated og:image); robots.txt Allow + sitemap.xml; contact display MARKLINE by Vertexi5 · markline@vertexi5.com. Continuum must not claim Code-of-Practice alignment.