Transparency
Where AI works inside cosmetiFULL, and where a person does
Beauty brand owners, cosmetic manufacturers and safety assessors all put their name to something at the end of this work. This page says where artificial intelligence sits inside cosmetiFULL, what a qualified person decides and signs, and where every rule the software applies comes from.
Who you are dealing with
cosmetiFULL is operated by Nicodemo & Signa Company Srl, registered in Romania, trade register J02/809/2003, VAT RO15617609. Under the AI Act we are the provider of the systems we sell: we build them, and the obligations that come with that sit with us. Both numbers are searchable in the Romanian trade register, at myportal.onrc.ro.
How an AI conversation is marked
In LabelCheck, the conversation about your report is marked as artificial intelligence, right beside it, and the marker stays there for the whole exchange. It sits next to the answer, where you are already looking, so one glance tells you what is answering.
What the software drafts, and what a person signs
A cosmetic product safety report is signed by a qualified safety assessor. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 says it in two places: the qualification of the assessor in Article 10(2), and the dated signature in Annex I, Part B, point 4. Behind that signature sits the assessor’s judgement, and that judgement stays theirs. What our software writes is working material, and it says on its face that it is a draft. LabelCheck reads the artwork while it is still on a screen and reports back every point that needs attention, each one with the article of the regulation that lays it down. Then you decide what to change, before you commit the print run.
Where the regulatory rules come from
Every rule the software applies is written from the official legal text published on EUR-Lex, and it carries the citation of the article it rests on. One citation per rule, so when a report tells you that something needs attention, it also tells you which article says so, and the text of that article is one click away on EUR-Lex. We re-check the sources on a fixed schedule, twice a month, and when a regulation changes, the rule changes with it and the change is dated on the LabelCheck regulatory updates page. Every rule lives in one place, so when it moves, every app that uses it moves with it, in the same release.
What happens to what you send us
Your documents stay yours. We use them for one thing, producing the result you asked for. Your content stays out of model training, and the exclusion is written into the contract with the provider whose model we call. The report the check produces stays in your account, with every point and the article behind it, and it stays there until you delete it. What feeds our statistics sits a layer above the content, and it is all we take from it: counts and categories, which kinds of labelling issue come up, how serious they are, in which markets and languages, with the account reduced to a one-way token. A feedback note and the screenshot you attach we keep as well, so the answer reaches you. We rely on legitimate interest for the statistics, and you can object at any time by writing to us.
Who answers for what we publish
The regulatory content we publish is checked and approved by Claudio Nicodemo in English, the version every other language is derived from, and the editorial responsibility for it belongs to the company named above. The line between what the software drafts and what a person decides is set out on this page, and LabelCheck works to it.
How LabelCheck is classified under the AI Act
High risk under the AI Act has two doors, and LabelCheck stands outside both. One is Annex III, which lists eight areas, and regulatory work on cosmetics is in none of the eight. The other is Article 6(1), and it has two conditions that must both be met, each anchored to Annex I of the AI Act. First, the system has to be a safety component of, or itself be, a product covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in that Annex. Second, that product has to undergo a third-party conformity assessment under the same legislation. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 is not in Annex I: it appears in the AI Act only inside the title of the medical devices regulation, and the word cosmetic appears nowhere in the text. So this door stays shut for a cosmetics tool. The article and the Annex are both public, and the addresses are at the foot of this page.
Ask us which article of the law says so
Write to security@cosmetifull.com about anything on this page, the AI Act reasoning included. The reply names the article of the law, and the address of the official text comes with it, so you can read the provision yourself.
security@cosmetifull.comEditorial
How we write what you read
Claudio Nicodemo
Anthropic has said that Claude models released in the European Union from 2 August 2026 will carry an invisible mark in the text they generate, and that the older models will get the same mark over the coming months. The mark lives in the word choices themselves, and reading it takes Anthropic’s own key, so it travels with the text wherever the text goes. This is the right moment to say how this site is written, before anyone asks.
The short version
I use AI to draft. The judgement stays mine, and every English page on this site I have read line by line.
Every guide, every page, every post here has a name on it: mine. If something here is wrong, I am the one who got it wrong.
The other language versions are transcreated by machine from the English, including the version of this page you may be reading, and machine checked against the official text of the regulation in that language. Every translated guide says so in its own byline, with a link back to the English original.
The longer version, because the details are the point
The thinking comes first, and it is mine. What we cover. Which angle. Which regulation matters this month. What a brand needs to hear before it orders 5,000 units.
That comes from 30 years in the trade, and from the questions clients ask me every week. A model has neither.
The first draft is often machine written. I say it plainly, so you know exactly what you are reading. A draft is a draft: it gets the shape on the page faster, and it frees the time for the part that matters.
Then it gets checked, and most of it gets rewritten. Regulatory claims go back to the source text: Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, its Annexes, the Commission decisions, in the official language version. What a model remembers carries no weight here. Every number that stays on the page can be traced back to that text.
The checks run before the site can be published. 64 automated checks run every time this site is put together. They compare regulatory terms with the official language versions, claims about our software with the code that runs it, and every internal link with the page it points to. A page reaches the site only after it clears all of them, and that holds on the days I am in a hurry.
Why we say it anyway
Article 50(4) of the AI Act asks anyone who publishes AI generated text in order to inform the public on matters of public interest to say so. The same paragraph lifts that duty where the content has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content.
The Commission published its reading of what that review has to be, in guidelines adopted on 20 July 2026: a deliberate examination of the substance by someone with the knowledge to judge it, with the authority to approve, alter or reject it, and fact checking as a minimum. A spell check does not count, and an automated review does not either. Those guidelines are non binding: they carry the Commission’s reading, and only the Court of Justice can settle what the article means.
So we split the work in two. The English is written the way those guidelines describe. The translated guides are machine work, and each one says so in its own byline, which is what the article asks for when the exemption does not apply.
The reason is commercial rather than high minded.
We sell regulatory work. We tell brands that an unsubstantiated claim carries a legal risk. That an unchecked label is the shortest road to a recall. That the paperwork has to match the product.
It would be a strange company that gave that advice and then went quiet about its own paperwork.
What this means if you found us through an AI
You may be reading a summary of this page rather than the page. That is fine.
But if a chatbot told you something about cosmetic regulation and cited us, open the guide it came from. We keep the source references in the text so that you can.
A limit, a concentration, an Annex entry: each of those comes with a number you can look up. If a summary hands you the conclusion and leaves the number out, go and find the number.
Ask me directly
Questions about any of this, or about a particular guide? Write to info@cosmetifull.com and it reaches me.
info@cosmetifull.com