Ojja works for the DPO.
For the DPO and legal: the documentation vendors do not give you, feature by feature, with the source; your opinions, recorded and dated; and what you need to approve Ojja itself. The points to review with your counsel are named; the assessment remains yours.
A DPO's questions
- Which AI features touch employee, candidate or client data?
- Which send data outside the European Union, and which train their models on it?
- Which AI acts without human validation?
- A vendor changed its terms: what changed, and for which tools?
- A client, a candidate or an inspection questions us: which documents do we answer with?
Ojja does not answer for you. It gives you the facts to answer.
Your opinions, dated
A point to review that touches personal data shows “under review by the DPO since …”, with its date. It is neither a delay nor a fault: it is a review in progress, visible to everyone who reads the workspace. The date the vendor turned the feature on stays shown next to it.
- Your opinion, reasoned and dated. Favorable, favorable with conditions, unfavorable, or to be completed.
- The decision, next to it. It is recorded in the record of decisions, with your opinion. When it departs from your opinion, Ojja asks for the reasons, and they stay in the record.
Under the European guidelines on the DPO, meeting the GDPR's requirements is the organization's responsibility, not the DPO's. Ojja records the facts and keeps a record of your opinions.
Ojja assigns the DPO no count of pending points: it dates each review.
The documentation vendors do not give you
According to the survey “DPOs in the age of AI”, published on July 3, 2026, vendor documentation is one of the difficulties DPOs cite when it comes to AI.
Source: DGEFP and CNIL, with Afpa and AFCDP, “DPO Survey 2025: DPOs in the age of AI” (in French), published on July 3, 2026.
Ojja's catalog records this documentation for you, feature by feature:
- What the vendor writes, on its own site. What the feature reads, where the vendor processes the data, whether it trains its models on it, whether it turns on by default: each fact cited at its primary source, with the date it was read.
- What it does not say. A fact the vendor does not document is written “not documented by the vendor”, with the date of the check.
- Declared or committed by contract. For each fact, what the vendor announces on its page, and what it writes in its DPA, an AI addendum or its terms.
- What the DPO looks for. The impact assessment criteria the feature meets, the role the vendor declares, the retention of your prompts: further down this page.
- What changes. An alert when a vendor changes its terms.
What you see in Ojja Watch
- The DPO view. The register sorted by alert, with three layers: data and access, sovereignty, linked frameworks.
- Data and access. For each feature, the categories of data it touches (employees, candidates, clients, documents, meetings) and the scope read.
- Sovereignty. Where the data is processed, training on your data (yes, no, or not documented by the vendor), the date the vendor's data processing agreement was read, the date of its latest changed terms. An alert when a vendor changes its terms.
- Linked frameworks. The frameworks the public catalog links to each feature (data protection, the regulation on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, information and consultation of staff representatives), each with the point to review with your counsel. When you have reviewed it, the line says so, with the date and the document.
- Three facts on the same line. Employee or candidate data, processed outside the European Union, data processing agreement not read: the line no other screen shows you.
- The law in your feed. When a text is published, the number of features in your register that the catalog links to it, and the points to review with your counsel.
- When the vendor says nothing. The fact sheet says so: “Not documented by the vendor”, with the date of the check.
- Your counsel, invited. Your lawyer or your external DPO read on your invitation, with an expiry date.
On the Arvenne example
The third count of Arvenne's readout records two AI features: the image generator, which trains on content, and the meeting transcription tool, which processes outside the EU. The meeting recaps fact sheet, a sample sheet with fictional values, says what it reads: meeting transcripts; where the data goes: the European Union; whether it trains on your data: no; whether it is on by default: yes. Linked framework: data protection.
Arvenne, a fictional company · sample data
Impact assessment criteria, feature by feature
For each feature, Ojja records the criteria of the European guidelines on data protection impact assessments that it meets by its nature:
- evaluation or scoring;
- automated decision-making with legal or similarly significant effect;
- systematic monitoring;
- sensitive or highly personal data;
- vulnerable people, including employees;
- innovative use.
The criteria that depend on your use (large scale, matching or combining data, preventing the exercise of a right) remain in your hands: Ojja does not infer them.
Each criterion comes from the type of the feature and from the facts the catalog records, with their source.
On each line that meets one, a point to review: “impact assessment to review with your DPO”.
The framework the catalog links to these criteria: the GDPR, Article 35, and the European guidelines on data protection impact assessments, with the points to review with your DPO.
Ojja does not say whether an impact assessment is required: it records the criteria; the review is your DPO's.
What the vendor keeps of your prompts
For each feature, two facts read in the vendor's data processing agreement (DPA) and in its documentation:
- The role it declares. The role under the GDPR that the vendor declares for this feature: processor, or controller for certain purposes, such as improving its model. Quoted as it writes it, with the document.
- How long it keeps your prompts. How long the vendor keeps prompts and responses, and whether your administrator can set that period.
When the vendor says nothing, the fact sheet says so: “not documented”.
The role shown is the one the vendor declares; the qualification remains your DPO's or your counsel's.
The framework the catalog links to these facts: the GDPR, Article 28, with the points to review with your DPO.
Ojja reads neither your prompts nor the responses: it records what the vendor writes about them.
What you get out of it
- The file for a CNIL inspection, AI part, and its recruiting part.
- A client's AI questionnaire, each answer with its source and its date.
- The answer to a candidate: the state of your HR tools on the day of their application.
- The signed Constat: it records and dates facts, signed.
Approve Ojja in one hour
Ojja reads your tools on your behalf: before connecting it, you review it like any contractor that processes data for your company. In its data processing agreement, Ojja declares itself a processor.
The DPO kit gathers what you need, on the trust page: Ojja's pre-filled record entry, what Ojja reads and never reads, permission by permission, the facts for your impact assessment, and its data processing agreement (DPA).
What Ojja never does
- Ojja does not say whether a use is permitted: it gives the facts, and the points to review with your counsel.
- Ojja never concludes: no risk level, no role, no assessment of whether a text is respected.
- Ojja reads registers and configurations, never your content.
- Ojja does not redo your record of processing activities, your impact assessments or your tracking of access requests: it brings you the facts about AI.
- Ojja gives no figure per person.
Ojja does not provide legal advice: it records and documents; how the law applies to your situation is for your counsel to determine.