IN SHORT
- It can be confidently wrong. Anything with money in it deserves a second look.
- It does not publish phone apps to the app stores.
- A messy migration out of an old system still needs a person.
- Some systems are barred outright by law, not by policy.
What it is bad at
- Being wrong with confidence. The studio writes what it understood, and it does not sound uncertain when it misunderstood. Check anything with money or a legal consequence in it.
- Phone apps in the stores. What gets built is web software that works properly on a phone. Publishing a native app to the Apple or Google stores is not something the studio does.
- Messy migrations. Clean data out of a spreadsheet or an old system can be brought across. Fifteen years of inconsistent records with three spellings of every customer name still needs a person to sort out first.
- Design as a discipline. What it builds is clean and legible and consistent. It is not a brand identity, and it will not win an award.
- Fixing a process nobody can describe. If two people in the company disagree about how the work actually flows, software will not settle the argument — it will encode whichever version got typed in.
What is barred outright
Some systems cannot be built here at all, because the EU AI Act prohibits them rather than because we have a policy about them. Prohibited practices under Article 5 have applied since 2 February 2025, and from 2 December 2026 the prohibition extends to systems producing non-consensual intimate imagery or child sexual abuse material.
There is no emotion recognition and no biometric identification on this site, and building systems whose purpose falls under the prohibitions is out of scope. The AI Act page sets out the schedule and the fines in full.
Where the human sits
The studio writes software; it does not push it live on its own. Someone reviews and someone releases. That is deliberate — it is the shape Article 14 of the AI Act asks for, and here it is the only shape available.
The same rule runs through what you build: AI inside your system drafts, and a person approves anything that leaves the building.
Three signs to hand the job to a person
- You have described the same thing three times and the result is still not it — the description is probably missing a constraint you have not noticed you have.
- The system has to interoperate with something old, undocumented and load-bearing, where getting it wrong stops the business rather than annoying it.
- The deadline is external and hard. Our team offers a launch service where they do the first build with you for a fixed fee — the honest answer when the calendar is the constraint.
RELATED
Tutorial: when to ask a person — the same limits, with what to do about each
AI Act — the prohibitions, the dates and the fines
We Build — the fixed-fee first build, when the calendar is the constraint