Who built this and why it should be verifiable
Kelias was built by one person. The curriculum is based on primary public sources. The DigComp 3.0 alignment is designed to be checked by the people who wrote the framework.
Ikpong Joseph
I hold an MSc in Artificial Intelligence. Alongside that, I work as an AI practitioner and consultant: I build and deploy AI systems for clients across multiple industries, explain AI concepts to non-technical audiences, and advise organisations on applied AI implementation.
This curriculum is not a legal textbook and it is not a computer science course. Its central challenge is explaining how AI systems actually work, where they fail, and what that means for people who use them in professional contexts. An MSc in AI combined with hands-on practitioner experience is the right background for exactly that challenge.
I am not a Lithuanian government official and Kelias is not affiliated with any public body. It is an independent educational product built against national and EU frameworks.
Background
- MSc Artificial Intelligence
- AI practitioner
- AI educator
- AI consultant and developer
The honest answer to "who developed this?"
"I have an MSc in AI and I work as an AI practitioner and consultant. The legal and regulatory content in the curriculum is based directly on the primary texts: the EU AI Act, DigComp 3.0, GDPR, not on my interpretation of them. The practical content on how AI tools work and fail is based on direct professional experience. I contacted the JRC DigComp team directly. They do not review commercial implementations as a matter of institutional policy. They referred me to the eight external experts who developed DigComp 3.0 alongside them. I have engaged all eight for a practitioner review of the competence mapping. I want the framework alignment to be independently verifiable, not just claimed."
Primary source synthesis
All legal and regulatory content in the curriculum is based on primary authoritative public sources. The content represents what these documents say and what they require of deployers. It does not assert original legal interpretations or policy positions.
| Content area | Primary source |
|---|---|
| EU AI Act obligations (deployers, Article 4, Annex III high-risk) | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (full text, publicly available) |
| DigComp 3.0 competence framework and proficiency levels | Joint Research Centre publication JRC144121, November 2025 |
| Lithuania National AI Strategy targets and framework | Lithuania National AI Strategy 2026 to 2035 (public document) |
| GDPR Article 22 (automated decision-making) | Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (full text) |
| GovTech Lab pre-commercial procurement pathway | Innovation Agency Lithuania public documentation |
Case studies in the curriculum are drawn from documented, legally resolved, or publicly reported events. The Robodebt case draws on the Australian Royal Commission of 2023. The SyRI case draws on the Dutch court ruling of 2020. No case study relies on unverified or proprietary information.
Where the curriculum addresses evolving areas of practice (disclosure standards for AI-assisted public communications, for example), it describes the current state of practice and flags the direction of travel. It does not assert that evolving guidance is settled.
What can be independently verified
The curriculum is designed to be reviewed. Three specific parties can verify three distinct questions.
DigComp 3.0 alignment
We approached the JRC directly for a curriculum review. JRC policy prevents them from reviewing commercial implementations, the same institutional neutrality that applies to all vendors. They referred us to the eight external experts who developed DigComp 3.0 alongside them. We have engaged all eight for a practitioner review of the competence mapping.
EU AI Act accuracy
Any EU AI Act specialist can verify that the deployer obligations, risk classifications, and Annex III categories described in Module 3 accurately represent Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
Appropriateness for Lithuanian public sector
GovAI at VSSA (the State Digital Solutions Agency) is the natural reviewer for whether the curriculum's framing, examples, and level of complexity are appropriate for Lithuanian public sector professionals. Outreach is in progress.
External validations in progress
The author's credentials open the door. Each validation below converts a question ("who says this is accurate?") into a documented answer.
| Validation | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| DigComp 3.0 external expert review | In progress | JRC referred us to the DigComp 3.0 external expert group (8 members). Outreach sent September 2026. Responses pending. |
| GovAI curriculum appropriateness review | Not yet initiated | Outreach to VSSA AI Competence Centre in progress |
| First institutional pilot completion | Pre-launch | Offered to Tier 2 institutional targets via outreach |
| Named institutional testimonial | Post-pilot | To be requested from first pilot institution after completion |
| Lithuanian-language content review | Pre-Lithuanian track | Native-speaking reviewer to be sourced before LT launch (H1 2027) |
How this platform uses AI
This marketing site does not use AI. The learning platform, when launched, will use Jason, an AI Tutor powered by a third-party large language model API. Every interaction with Jason identifies it as an AI. Jason does not determine learner progression or produce competence reports: those are generated from assessment scores.
Kelias is itself a deployer of AI systems under the EU AI Act, and therefore has its own Article 4 obligation. The founder holds an MSc in Artificial Intelligence and works as an active AI practitioner. That is the AI literacy basis for a one-person company deploying an AI tutor.
Questions about the curriculum?
If you are a researcher, institutional contact, or JRC team member who would like to review the curriculum or the DigComp 3.0 mapping in full, get in touch.