{"meta":{"dataset_id":"praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph","dataset_version":"2.5.0","schema_version":"1.5.0","regulation":"ai-act","lang":"en","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","count":147,"filters":{"id":null,"type":null,"role":null,"duty_holder":null,"topic":null},"identifiers":{"canonical_namespace":"praxikon","canonical_form":"praxikon:<jurisdiction>:<regulation>:<type>:<slug>","legacy_namespace":"raip","legacy_resolution":"permanent","resolved":{"id":null,"role":null,"duty_holder":null}}},"data":[{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:annex-iii-classify","legacy_id":"raip:action:annex-iii-classify","type":"action","slug":"annex-iii-classify","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"45e9f9a5d90d79db8c90f170ae677cbdcf3189bb6e00ce819a3d88bc2a88d521","label":"Classify the use case and document the outcome","summary":"Assess Article 5, Article 6 and Annex III in that order and document purpose, context and any Article 6(3) exception.","topics":["high-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:appoint-gpai-authorised-representative","legacy_id":"raip:action:appoint-gpai-authorised-representative","type":"action","slug":"appoint-gpai-authorised-representative","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f5a3eafa324e8ae8618656496fa8bd7c323e3a6f36d5993f3ab92493fe6d2c10","label":"Appoint an authorised representative and record the mandate","summary":"Determine whether you are the provider of the model, appoint an authorised representative established in the Union by written mandate before placing the model on the market, and write out in that mandate the four tasks in paragraph 3, the access to the Annex XI documentation and the point of contact under paragraph 4.","topics":["gpai","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[{"id":"appoint-gpai-authorised-representative-scope","operator":"all","description":"To be carried out before the model is placed on the Union market, and to be revisited on every change to the model, to the provider establishment or to the licence under which the model is released. For models placed on the market before 2 August 2025, the Article 111(3) period runs until 2 August 2027."}],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 54 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-10-data-governance-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-10-data-governance-act","type":"action","slug":"article-10-data-governance-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"07e6caa997eb341b80bd70dbe72375bbb20b6c2e8244781b1a78e5aa78bd5f99","label":"Set up data governance per dataset","summary":"Assess origin, representativeness, errors and completeness and examine possible bias with appropriate mitigation.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-10-data-governance"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-11-technical-documentation-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-11-technical-documentation-act","type":"action","slug":"article-11-technical-documentation-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"aac68683836ab7438b276e37db525147120ee1c8b17504deb8afdf463775028e","label":"Build the technical file per Annex IV","summary":"Document system description, development process, data, oversight measures, performance and risk management before market placement.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-11-technical-documentation"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-12-logging-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-12-logging-act","type":"action","slug":"article-12-logging-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"bc72111cd908749f45f4505a27037916f84201afd262d163734cd1e1cd1570d6","label":"Design logging into the system","summary":"Ensure the system automatically records events relevant to risk identification and post-market monitoring.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-13-instructions-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-13-instructions-act","type":"action","slug":"article-13-instructions-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"2c933d039adc24eb26671c5b345f5af373daf4d22eb3eb65ae4cc0613e8d13fd","label":"Provide complete instructions for use","summary":"Describe capabilities, limitations, accuracy, oversight measures and expected lifetime in comprehensible form.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-13-instructions"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-14-human-oversight-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-14-human-oversight-act","type":"action","slug":"article-14-human-oversight-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"3db8554f83cb279256051eba2cac4037890fa7aa612a9bec06cdd1419d865da9","label":"Design and assign effective human oversight","summary":"Determine oversight measures per system, appoint competent persons and give them the mandate to intervene or stop.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-14-human-oversight"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-15-accuracy-robustness-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-15-accuracy-robustness-act","type":"action","slug":"article-15-accuracy-robustness-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"308f37fc79ba9447a16e936a2d5cd3489b9c5c81080082781cbf3bf9ef6ba128","label":"Set and test performance and security levels","summary":"Determine appropriate accuracy, test robustness against errors and misuse, and take AI-specific security measures.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-15-accuracy-robustness"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-17-quality-management-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-17-quality-management-act","type":"action","slug":"article-17-quality-management-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"353c4c34130f1911c4fc303b0b612f64dc2bf858c7f1ed3188fa121bdc142c2c","label":"Set up an AI quality management system","summary":"Describe strategies, procedures and responsibilities for compliance, from design and data to post-market monitoring.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-17-quality-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-4-measures","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-4-measures","type":"action","slug":"article-4-measures","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"3f3699a4a50d321f929398b3e22a09717b41cb61219099a76c50c7fe3e847bba","label":"Take role- and context-specific AI literacy measures","summary":"Determine for each role, system and context which combination of instruction, guidance, practice or training is appropriate.","topics":["ai-literacy"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-5-screen","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-5-screen","type":"action","slug":"article-5-screen","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"04909810be70c58c1d7e803ba7db9de2f0b2097bfaeb94e6b843cfb674568843","label":"Screen every use case against Article 5 first","summary":"Before procurement, build or deployment, check whether the use case falls under a prohibited practice and stop or redesign early rather than after the fact.","topics":["prohibited-practices"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-50-disclosure","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-50-disclosure","type":"action","slug":"article-50-disclosure","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"99fae5953121e6ee0cea8f3714e4532267ff91f1f18cdb816068d17f3aab51f0","label":"Implement the applicable disclosure, marking or label","summary":"First determine which paragraph of Article 50 applies, then implement the specific transparency measure.","topics":["transparency"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-act","type":"action","slug":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"22f1e83c282484613e9a5c0fd38afcaa111825c884177c792a1adfa24c94fa94","label":"Perform model evaluations and risk mitigation","summary":"Evaluate the model including adversarial testing, assess and mitigate systemic risks, report serious incidents and secure the model.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-72-post-market-monitoring-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-72-post-market-monitoring-act","type":"action","slug":"article-72-post-market-monitoring-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"b793dbcac4abe75f52fcb6314e88415f7a052a563c89542abc977881133dd82c","label":"Draw up a post-market monitoring plan","summary":"Systematically collect and analyse real-world data on the system’s performance and compliance throughout its lifetime.","topics":["post-market"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-73-incident-reporting-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-73-incident-reporting-act","type":"action","slug":"article-73-incident-reporting-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d21aa0f06e500097b8a63b4ce005a9181eb7330b407cef9d604f6cd6c58109a2","label":"Set up an incident process with reporting routes","summary":"Define what a serious incident is, assign the reporting route to the supervisor and rehearse the process.","topics":["post-market"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-9-risk-management-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:article-9-risk-management-act","type":"action","slug":"article-9-risk-management-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"9fb9c4c7f569fdd776e6d5beebdde1935651c90f8c6bf6112103703100b69c0a","label":"Set up an iterative risk management process","summary":"Identify and analyse known and reasonably foreseeable risks, evaluate them and take measures, repeating the cycle on every change.","topics":["high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-9-risk-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:conformity-ce-registration-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:conformity-ce-registration-act","type":"action","slug":"conformity-ce-registration-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"bfb9c4d6c2d511bcb65fe05b5604bbdcf9e4cecdeba886278f79ea41639c38bb","label":"Complete the conformity route before market placement","summary":"Select the correct assessment procedure, draw up the EU declaration of conformity, affix the CE marking and register in the EU database.","topics":["conformity"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:conformity-ce-registration"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:decide-and-record-gpai-code-adherence","legacy_id":"raip:action:decide-and-record-gpai-code-adherence","type":"action","slug":"decide-and-record-gpai-code-adherence","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"15c06567511f04bb7ed8af6b5ef082cca034e6b7c8e7c14048abe48bde7b2b36","label":"Take and record the decision whether you adhere to a code of practice","summary":"Determine per general-purpose AI model whether you adhere to a code of practice, to which version and which chapter, whether under paragraph 7 the obligations in Article 53 suffice for you, and which elaboration of your own you apply for the issues in paragraph 2 where you do not join.","topics":["governance","gpai","gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[{"id":"decide-and-record-gpai-code-adherence-scope","operator":"all","description":"Arises when you place a general-purpose AI model on the Union market, and again whenever a code of practice is reviewed or adapted."}],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 56 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/56","label":"Read Article 56 in the AI Act Explorer"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","label":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice at the European Commission"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:fria-assess","legacy_id":"raip:action:fria-assess","type":"action","slug":"fria-assess","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"060d2e1bc287118ccbb10293b2e58d6beb41edbc3a258713f507550ef6ba6a7e","label":"Perform a FRIA before deployment","summary":"Assess process, duration, affected persons, risks, oversight, mitigation and complaint mechanisms and notify results where required.","topics":["fundamental-rights","high-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:credit-or-insurance-deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-service-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:gpai-document","legacy_id":"raip:action:gpai-document","type":"action","slug":"gpai-document","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f7df0039880787783fe41ffab2efdb643b7f698288791536bfb338b5b5bde3f1","label":"Maintain GPAI documentation and transparency information","summary":"Maintain technical documentation, information for downstream providers, a copyright policy and a public summary of training content.","topics":["gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:mark-confidential-material-on-submission","legacy_id":"raip:action:mark-confidential-material-on-submission","type":"action","slug":"mark-confidential-material-on-submission","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"1a1c83bf26c7b8cc95f52cc0350a637355d9b59e0da7bf6f9156788e1ccd37f8","label":"Mark and register what you submit to an authority or body","summary":"State on every submission which part is confidential business information, trade secret or source code, keep track of what was handed to whom on what date, and on a further request ask about the necessity and the purpose within the meaning of Article 78(2).","topics":["enforcement","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-78-confidentiality"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[{"id":"mark-confidential-material-on-submission-scope","operator":"all","description":"Arises on every submission to a market surveillance authority, a notified body, the Commission or the AI Office, and on every registration part of which lands in the secure non-public section of the EU database."}],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 78 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/78","label":"Read Article 78 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:notify-systemic-risk-threshold","legacy_id":"raip:action:notify-systemic-risk-threshold","type":"action","slug":"notify-systemic-risk-threshold","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"65a8b063463c2dc75b5dc4818d987c332a94fbaca9284ee52d4ac412ac01f266","label":"Notify the Commission within two weeks","summary":"Notify the model as soon as it meets the condition in Article 51(1), point (a), or as soon as it becomes known that it will, with the information necessary to demonstrate that the requirement has been met, and with any substantiation that the model does not present systemic risks after all.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[{"id":"notify-systemic-risk-threshold-scope","operator":"all","description":"To be carried out within two weeks after the requirement in Article 51(1), point (a), is met or after it becomes known that it will be met, and to be revisited for every new model version that touches the threshold. For models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 the date in Article 111(3) applies."}],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 52 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:request-systemic-risk-reassessment","legacy_id":"raip:action:request-systemic-risk-reassessment","type":"action","slug":"request-systemic-risk-reassessment","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d1f2f468a39d4cd72a817e9481564f17aa5263907196b6cdd5443130244b5145","label":"Request reassessment after a designation","summary":"If your model has been designated under Article 52(4), you may request reassessment by reasoned request. The request must contain objective, detailed and new reasons that have arisen since the designation decision, and may be made at the earliest six months after that decision; where the designation is maintained, a further six months apply.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[{"id":"request-systemic-risk-reassessment-scope","operator":"all","description":"Only available to the provider of a model designated by the Commission under Article 52(4), and only once six months have passed since the designation decision or since a decision to maintain the designation."}],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 52 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:value-chain-representative-act","legacy_id":"raip:action:value-chain-representative-act","type":"action","slug":"value-chain-representative-act","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"2ad75cc7b673736332e11a5f078c439bcc4d6de61a8566c335a9be3e7c4d08f2","label":"Assess the value-chain role per system and change","summary":"On white-labelling, substantial modification or purpose change, assess whether your organisation becomes the provider, and arrange the representative for non-EU supply.","topics":["value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:value-chain-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:verify-notified-body-standing","legacy_id":"raip:action:verify-notified-body-standing","type":"action","slug":"verify-notified-body-standing","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"e52601467ef15090bb9a580857cc94205aa84cbc961989f3b5bfc5d601395a87","label":"Check the standing and independence of your notified body","summary":"At the moment of choice and periodically thereafter, verify whether the body appears in the Commission public list, for which activities and system types it is notified, whether its designation has been restricted or suspended, and whether the independence of Article 31(4) and (5) holds; also ask which tasks are subcontracted and give your agreement under Article 33(3) in writing.","topics":["conformity","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[{"id":"verify-notified-body-standing-scope","operator":"all","description":"Arises as soon as you select or contract a notified body, on every renewal of the assignment, and on every notice of a change to its designation."}],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Chapter III, Section 4, on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/31","label":"Read Article 31 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:ai-office","legacy_id":"raip:actor:ai-office","type":"actor","slug":"ai-office","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"22316f4ef249535428bf3fda894f06947441411820e6d05de779e863d0e37c3d","label":"AI Office","summary":"The Commission office that supervises providers of general-purpose AI models. AI Office enforcement is active since 2 August 2026.","topics":["enforcement","governance","gpai"],"actor_ids":[],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:credit-or-insurance-deployer","legacy_id":"raip:actor:credit-or-insurance-deployer","type":"actor","slug":"credit-or-insurance-deployer","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"708f7cf67870d5dee4af13b996f46aa5bf169cc0c6dbb59da14d300ee15052e0","label":"Credit or insurance deployer","summary":"A deployer of the relevant creditworthiness or life and health insurance systems in Annex III point 5(b) or 5(c).","topics":["fundamental-rights","high-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","legacy_id":"raip:actor:deployer","type":"actor","slug":"deployer","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"2e95bd4a7cf24e69e0c77d9a006d5af3d3776312d2232a739e103e8f77cad2fc","label":"Deployer","summary":"An organisation using an AI system under its authority, excluding personal non-professional use.","topics":["governance"],"actor_ids":[],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","legacy_id":"raip:actor:gpai-model-provider","type":"actor","slug":"gpai-model-provider","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"b7d30d797a24d785ce56151a6038c71211a66a2894277e0a39faab35f93f488b","label":"Provider of a GPAI model","summary":"A party that places a general-purpose AI model on the Union market.","topics":["gpai"],"actor_ids":[],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:market-surveillance-authority","legacy_id":"raip:actor:market-surveillance-authority","type":"actor","slug":"market-surveillance-authority","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d01741f6ddf8930eff8d0ebfb001c233e657813742eca2a1fb8b7a2dd4428145","label":"Market surveillance authority","summary":"The national authority that supervises compliance with the Regulation and receives serious incident and risk notifications. Which body fills this role per Member State is not recorded in the graph.","topics":["enforcement","governance"],"actor_ids":[],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider","legacy_id":"raip:actor:provider","type":"actor","slug":"provider","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d616e5233519c6adf01f00c1f5a3c8f16d7d861ad75579fefad24cd8ebbc2f81","label":"Provider of an AI system","summary":"A party that develops or has an AI system developed and places it on the market under its own name.","topics":["governance"],"actor_ids":[],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body","legacy_id":"raip:actor:public-law-body","type":"actor","slug":"public-law-body","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c81c5d001bbe6e2594205af22045d18188224495448db00b5cb56b9d2162e78b","label":"Body governed by public law","summary":"A deployer that is a body governed by public law.","topics":["fundamental-rights"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-service-provider","legacy_id":"raip:actor:public-service-provider","type":"actor","slug":"public-service-provider","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"bd2eae26e231ad222695741b498b82c7e75f3bfb42c035741598964764b9378d","label":"Private provider of public services","summary":"A private deployer providing public services.","topics":["fundamental-rights"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2024-08-01-entry-into-force","legacy_id":"raip:change:2024-08-01-entry-into-force","type":"change","slug":"2024-08-01-entry-into-force","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"3005c4a62c53f5c6606f6537159ec01ea6aaf834bfdc68728e4d8d8dece75259","label":"The AI Act enters into force","summary":"The regulation entered into force on 1 August 2024, after which the obligations followed in phases.","topics":["timeline"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 appeared in the Official Journal on 12 July 2024 and entered into force on 1 August 2024. Article 113 sets out that most provisions only become applicable later.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 113","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2025-02-02-prohibitions-and-literacy-applicable","legacy_id":"raip:change:2025-02-02-prohibitions-and-literacy-applicable","type":"change","slug":"2025-02-02-prohibitions-and-literacy-applicable","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"209c8ebc73f368351e91ff2dad213b0429b7cfc89381fafea6e337ed35d7828f","label":"Prohibited practices and AI literacy apply","summary":"Since 2 February 2025 the Article 5 prohibition and the Article 4 AI literacy duty apply.","topics":["ai-literacy","timeline"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Chapter I and Chapter II became applicable on 2 February 2025. That makes the prohibited practices the first category with enforceable duties.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 113, second paragraph, point (a)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2025-07-10-gpai-code-of-practice","legacy_id":"raip:change:2025-07-10-gpai-code-of-practice","type":"change","slug":"2025-07-10-gpai-code-of-practice","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-07-10T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"524909094d7534dcd6df4dbe2cf53d3f6fc0c5d0be57e07463d0cd313d96040c","label":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice published","summary":"The voluntary code of practice gives GPAI model providers a route to demonstrate compliance.","topics":["gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"The Commission published the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice on 10 July 2025. Signing is voluntary; signatories can rely on it to demonstrate compliance with the GPAI obligations.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:gpai-code-of-practice","source_locator":"Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI, 10 July 2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"guidance","deadline_at":"2025-07-10T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2025-07-18-gpai-guidelines","legacy_id":"raip:change:2025-07-18-gpai-guidelines","type":"change","slug":"2025-07-18-gpai-guidelines","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-07-18T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"951b241022b8676b3140c22c06c12657cb1c5f8930553cd333732ff615d36a91","label":"Guidelines on the scope of the GPAI obligations","summary":"The Commission explains when someone becomes the provider of a GPAI model, including through fine-tuning.","topics":["gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Guidelines C(2025) 5045 final of 18 July 2025 describe the scope of the obligations for providers of GPAI models, including when a party modifying a model becomes a provider itself.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5045 final, 18.7.2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"guidance","deadline_at":"2025-07-18T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2025-07-29-ai-system-definition-guidelines","legacy_id":"raip:change:2025-07-29-ai-system-definition-guidelines","type":"change","slug":"2025-07-29-ai-system-definition-guidelines","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-07-29T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f50ff3430cd1811fa195bea40d12ca839169924ffcb0d8d6aa72772c7838fc62","label":"Guidelines on the definition of an AI system","summary":"The Commission draws the line between software that does and does not fall under the regulation.","topics":["scope"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Guidelines C(2025) 5053 final of 29 July 2025 explain Article 3(1) through borderline cases, such as classical optimisation, statistical estimation and expert systems.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-system-definition-guidelines","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5053 final, 29.7.2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-ai-system-definition-facilitate-first-ai-acts-rules-application","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"guidance","deadline_at":"2025-07-29T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2025-07-29-prohibited-practices-guidelines","legacy_id":"raip:change:2025-07-29-prohibited-practices-guidelines","type":"change","slug":"2025-07-29-prohibited-practices-guidelines","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-07-29T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c853a0b561615bdd7c5af45302f539140684f35b1fa46f5b21f090e66a821c84","label":"Guidelines on prohibited AI practices","summary":"Worked examples for each Article 5 prohibition, with the line between permitted and prohibited.","topics":["prohibited"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Guidelines C(2025) 5052 final of 29 July 2025 work out each Article 5 prohibition with examples. The guidelines are non-binding: authoritative interpretation rests with the Court of Justice.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-prohibited-practices-guidelines","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5052 final, 29.7.2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-prohibited-artificial-intelligence-ai-practices-defined-ai-act","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"guidance","deadline_at":"2025-07-29T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2025-08-02-gpai-obligations-applicable","legacy_id":"raip:change:2025-08-02-gpai-obligations-applicable","type":"change","slug":"2025-08-02-gpai-obligations-applicable","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"029478e4015cda1adb2addf8614ca5fb51f7c72781d5b13d247911ffb5fa99ad","label":"GPAI model obligations apply","summary":"Since 2 August 2025 the obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models apply.","topics":["gpai","timeline"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Chapter V became applicable on 2 August 2025. Models placed on the market before that date must comply by 2 August 2027 at the latest.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Articles 53 to 55 and Article 111(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2027-08-02-legacy-gpai-models-comply","legacy_id":"raip:change:2027-08-02-legacy-gpai-models-comply","type":"change","slug":"2027-08-02-legacy-gpai-models-comply","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"17e4e2305767d130376a05e7217cad919dea24364451dfefb06df5708baea73a","label":"Legacy GPAI models must comply","summary":"Models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 have until 2 August 2027.","topics":["gpai","timeline"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 111(3) gives providers of GPAI models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 until 2 August 2027 to comply with Chapter V.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 111(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"upcoming","deadline_at":"2027-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:annex-iii-change-trigger","legacy_id":"raip:control:annex-iii-change-trigger","type":"control","slug":"annex-iii-change-trigger","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c5e147cd22d5207a8d1912771c7f88764d646fedc6ec79ed6fa684842469257e","label":"Reclassification on purpose or context change","summary":"Reopen classification when intended purpose, use context or system functionality changes materially.","topics":["control","high-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-10-data-governance-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-10-data-governance-control","type":"control","slug":"article-10-data-governance-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a1197480eeb259121cc853f384382755339627047a5fedee4e958dc1be5b3d36","label":"Data check before retraining","summary":"Repeat the data quality assessment before every retraining or dataset change.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-10-data-governance"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-11-technical-documentation-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-11-technical-documentation-control","type":"control","slug":"article-11-technical-documentation-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"7f41fa75300653fe8cf65da2dc464a21a6fe9f1bdce68ba2f0e7bdb2b9d44108","label":"Documentation update on every release","summary":"Update the file before every release and retain earlier versions traceably.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-11-technical-documentation"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-12-logging-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-12-logging-control","type":"control","slug":"article-12-logging-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"ef6bb673f232b91ca9a7ccc999eaced167d75fe7d5b6c8697976b68841abd1ca","label":"Periodic log review","summary":"Periodically verify that logging works, is complete and is retained according to the regime.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-13-instructions-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-13-instructions-control","type":"control","slug":"article-13-instructions-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d5e946dff0be31c1f71ccb47aefb643d221bb4f4509cc213c2072ea7737681a1","label":"Instructions check at deployment","summary":"At every deployment and update, verify instructions are present, current and internally translated.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-13-instructions"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-14-human-oversight-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-14-human-oversight-control","type":"control","slug":"article-14-human-oversight-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"55eb68e6c4e828adf673c2be5ab291024de40807686a85097372ca99d2e1e00e","label":"Oversight test before go-live","summary":"Before go-live, test that intervening, stopping and disregarding output actually works and is assigned.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-14-human-oversight"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-15-accuracy-robustness-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-15-accuracy-robustness-control","type":"control","slug":"article-15-accuracy-robustness-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"41b67105a6c49d112c6e9d4a83e3863d34c6c2402fa104568390e7e2636e1dfa","label":"Performance monitoring in use","summary":"Monitor whether the system stays within declared levels in production and escalate on deviation.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-15-accuracy-robustness"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-17-quality-management-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-17-quality-management-control","type":"control","slug":"article-17-quality-management-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"e20819d7fa6ff1eec67706612fa84dd4cce163c8ee5ac03b35072f1874fd2328","label":"Internal audit cycle","summary":"Periodically audit whether practice follows the described system and record deviations and improvements.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-17-quality-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-4-periodic-review","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-4-periodic-review","type":"control","slug":"article-4-periodic-review","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"0e4f286e8ab077ec312e5c3b2a491e5dd74beae4cce63bcbd8e69d290b511fdd","label":"Periodic role and context review","summary":"Check when systems, roles or risks change whether the selected measures remain appropriate.","topics":["ai-literacy","control"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-5-intake-gate","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-5-intake-gate","type":"control","slug":"article-5-intake-gate","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"37d45153584850ac2fb2b45e6d3da2c33f991d45251f12314162e56611cf0403","label":"Article 5 gate at intake and change","summary":"Repeat the screening for every new system, procurement and material change of purpose or context; an earlier clearance does not cover a new use.","topics":["control","prohibited-practices"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-50-release-check","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-50-release-check","type":"control","slug":"article-50-release-check","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"ef03e3c5735fc9e8bcd12090e90c9f547541fcc4af4e171bad16fa1b156b6c59","label":"Pre-release transparency check","summary":"Before release, test that the applicable disclosure, marking or label is timely, clear and technically effective.","topics":["control","transparency"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-control","type":"control","slug":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"4120e7c4ab88a0b1a21183363aad47c10324fb4199bb46e9966088927a83235c","label":"Compute threshold monitoring","summary":"Monitor cumulative training compute and notify the Commission when the threshold is reached.","topics":["control","gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-56-code-commitment-review","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-56-code-commitment-review","type":"control","slug":"article-56-code-commitment-review","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"6bef812ac71a549672a98de87ed6db504ebe93e9b284d502b8a9681ed0b3f0ad","label":"Review moment on your reliance on a code of practice","summary":"The control that periodically rechecks a reliance on a code of practice: does the version you rely on still stand, has the code been reviewed or adapted under paragraph 8, has the Commission published its assessment of adequacy under paragraph 6 as replaced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, and has the Commission laid down common rules under paragraph 9.","topics":["control","governance","gpai","gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 56 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/56","label":"Read Article 56 in the AI Act Explorer"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","label":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice at the European Commission"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-72-post-market-monitoring-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-72-post-market-monitoring-control","type":"control","slug":"article-72-post-market-monitoring-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c706acb5c18b681ab35cb71fe040a9cfd6ae019bffcaf84a122cb58536095ec0","label":"Signal-to-action loop","summary":"Ensure real-world signals (deviations, complaints, incidents) demonstrably lead to analysis and, where needed, measures.","topics":["control","post-market"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-73-incident-reporting-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-73-incident-reporting-control","type":"control","slug":"article-73-incident-reporting-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"fea3dc4bdbe0c4e36abad77a33369cd226656d4f52f9dde1d0f736f2afb04fb8","label":"Incident drill and deadline watch","summary":"Periodically test whether an incident can be reported within the legal deadlines, including the deployer-to-provider chain.","topics":["control","post-market"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-78-disclosure-review","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-78-disclosure-review","type":"control","slug":"article-78-disclosure-review","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"8ecf8b9fd5f0aece19a1cbd0a0187a2921d194f04caa372275204598627b2f92","label":"Review before handing over source code or trade secrets","summary":"The control that sends a submission touching source code, training methodology or trade secrets through a fixed review: is the request reasoned, what purpose was stated, which part is strictly necessary, and who inside the organisation signs off on it.","topics":["control","enforcement","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-78-confidentiality"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 78 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/78","label":"Read Article 78 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-9-risk-management-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:article-9-risk-management-control","type":"control","slug":"article-9-risk-management-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"0c3f5ab2befc762f6e21c1f2c74f24043d104c9e229c5edf7b4525254f7f630f","label":"Reassessment on every material change","summary":"Reopen the risk management process on changes in purpose, data, model or use context and before every release.","topics":["control","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-9-risk-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:conformity-ce-registration-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:conformity-ce-registration-control","type":"control","slug":"conformity-ce-registration-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f3f1746fc31ee9566dd0b6d950a65fe3fbad3185781fbbb10adc10669075ec6b","label":"Reassessment on substantial modification","summary":"Rerun the conformity route whenever the system is substantially modified.","topics":["conformity","control"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:conformity-ce-registration"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:fria-pre-deployment-gate","legacy_id":"raip:control:fria-pre-deployment-gate","type":"control","slug":"fria-pre-deployment-gate","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f26a0d2d91a4c059b5ce23eca62fc6a093d05de3b5ecb275c5c00961f5030af2","label":"Pre-deployment FRIA go/no-go","summary":"Block deployment until applicability, assessment, mitigation and notification have been completed.","topics":["control","fundamental-rights"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:credit-or-insurance-deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-service-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:gpai-documentation-change-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:gpai-documentation-change-control","type":"control","slug":"gpai-documentation-change-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"4187977f383ac562ce20b445c452c5c7f1522ebe928ce37cb7ba6ca1e69dc4ab","label":"GPAI documentation change control","summary":"Update documentation and downstream information when the model, capabilities or risks change.","topics":["control","gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:gpai-mandate-review","legacy_id":"raip:control:gpai-mandate-review","type":"control","slug":"gpai-mandate-review","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"abdb7a014ca38dc4812c42694c4c21a0ae8a1ff18298f325e121fb93b02efb17","label":"Periodic review and termination of the mandate","summary":"The control that ensures the representative can actually reach the documentation, that the verification under paragraph 3(a) is repeated at a fixed moment, and that there is an agreed route for the termination under paragraph 5 with the immediate notification to the AI Office. Without such a moment a mandate stays on paper while nobody tests it.","topics":["control","gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 54 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:notified-body-continuity-review","legacy_id":"raip:control:notified-body-continuity-review","type":"control","slug":"notified-body-continuity-review","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"fabcb8697be43cd7e7a5afb718c6e33c634899dffe4109ec6bbea8a2332dd293","label":"Control on the continuity of your conformity assessment","summary":"The control that absorbs the loss of a notified body: a fixed periodic check of the public list, a contractual reporting duty mirroring the ten days of Article 36(5), a named alternative body for your type of system, and a handover procedure that stays within the nine months of Article 36(3) and (9).","topics":["conformity","control","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Chapter III, Section 4, on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/31","label":"Read Article 31 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:systemic-risk-notification-deadline","legacy_id":"raip:control:systemic-risk-notification-deadline","type":"control","slug":"systemic-risk-notification-deadline","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a1360f831fc363afa31b7d27ce19e2052508240de43a2a817385d5e384640dea","label":"Deadline tracking of the notification","summary":"The control that ensures the signal from the training pipeline reaches an identifiable owner and that the notification goes out within two weeks. Its trigger point is the allocation of compute and not the end of the run, because recital 111 also counts pre-training, synthetic data and fine-tuning and recital 112 assumes the provider knows the outcome before then. It sits alongside the monitoring of compute itself: that measures the threshold, this guards the clock that starts afterwards.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 52 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:value-chain-representative-control","legacy_id":"raip:control:value-chain-representative-control","type":"control","slug":"value-chain-representative-control","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"092d622c30e9a7df25f8f59e6f5734fb380006a1e183c6f0e3009f8fe684988a","label":"Role reassessment on every change","summary":"Repeat the role assessment on every rebranding, modification or new use of an existing system.","topics":["control","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:value-chain-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:annex-iii-classification-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:annex-iii-classification-record","type":"evidence","slug":"annex-iii-classification-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"4d68ecf14476cac0fc4d5138f0be0dcc68e0abf1ac4cd44ce0aa8e994cb8a7fa","label":"Article 6 and Annex III classification record","summary":"Traceable rationale covering intended purpose, Annex III category, Article 6(3) assessment and registration decision.","topics":["evidence","high-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-10-data-governance-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-10-data-governance-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-10-data-governance-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"32f2b963bf38be0fb7c35f6b9c324675a8d24747dacf56cb1b4b161b90f4224b","label":"Data governance file","summary":"Record per dataset of origin, choices, assumptions, bias examination and mitigations.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-10-data-governance"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-11-technical-documentation-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-11-technical-documentation-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-11-technical-documentation-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"b689bbd5807454d5cdcf7df2eeb1b4551149bd8145913635ee43b8d5960c61c3","label":"Technical file (Annex IV)","summary":"Technical documentation kept current per system version, ready for a supervisor’s request.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-11-technical-documentation"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-12-logging-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-12-logging-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-12-logging-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"36b14e51199191933a3881aae2888e665d8dab5f41d1dd8b64dfee4f9aef7c13","label":"Logs and retention regime","summary":"Log files with a retention period appropriate to the purpose and at least six months for deployers (Articles 19 and 26).","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-13-instructions-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-13-instructions-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-13-instructions-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"9cf5a9282978ba5dcc5f638ecf130b839b7d1013200e9a5ae552edd3ea76a669","label":"Instructions and interpretation file","summary":"The received instructions for use plus their internal translation into work instructions per role.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-13-instructions"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-14-human-oversight-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-14-human-oversight-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-14-human-oversight-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"bc9a6564b37a39095b93cffd0ac26e457b39138da1e5b215f988afd2f3b11550","label":"Oversight file per system","summary":"Record of oversight measures, appointed persons, their training and the moments of intervention.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-14-human-oversight"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-15-accuracy-robustness-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-15-accuracy-robustness-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-15-accuracy-robustness-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"46b259071d6f973b30588fc7952ae2529db2f278e9ee17c2d0cc70c29efee49b","label":"Performance and security file","summary":"Declared accuracy levels, test results, and measures against data poisoning and adversarial attacks among others.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-15-accuracy-robustness"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-17-quality-management-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-17-quality-management-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-17-quality-management-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"dd98fef1830c5aad4dbb123f0544d3056d5f2910af30df1e36a749e525839a69","label":"QMS documentation","summary":"The documented quality system with procedures, role assignment and references to the underlying files.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-17-quality-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-4-measures-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-4-measures-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-4-measures-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"7e6a4c07cb2d763eadd2b346ceb4000aaf4341d5c1f7acf66daf5abce9102bb1","label":"AI literacy measures record","summary":"Versioned record of roles, context, measures, participation or instruction and review moments.","topics":["ai-literacy","evidence"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-5-screening-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-5-screening-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-5-screening-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"1c2ae4225779328f997e6a1d522a439d885728d71cf3045eda9abbe2dc24f5b7","label":"Article 5 screening record","summary":"A record per system that the Article 5 screening was performed, with outcome and reasoning. The conclusion \"no prohibited practice\" is evidence too.","topics":["evidence","prohibited-practices"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-50-implementation-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-50-implementation-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-50-implementation-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f27b10e694ea2bb90ee95fc8f15d1bd35f10975665a57bdc35b4f22a0b1f255f","label":"Transparency implementation record","summary":"Record of scenario, actor, disclosure or marking, technical implementation, test and owner.","topics":["evidence","transparency"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"80aec0d15f08b43419b7c3db7adf403eae6ff153b6de6d569741ac2f73e7ec7a","label":"Systemic-risk file","summary":"Evaluation results, risk assessments, mitigations, incident reports and security measures per model version.","topics":["evidence","gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-56-code-adherence-decision-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-56-code-adherence-decision-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-56-code-adherence-decision-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"7b7dd0817eeaba14597f377f266eeda19e018e03219c541bfe6bc9f028370ef6","label":"Record of the decision on a code of practice","summary":"Per model: the decision whether or not to adhere to a code of practice, the version and chapter it relates to, the date and the authorised signatory, whether adherence was limited under paragraph 7 to the obligations in Article 53, and, where the decision is negative, the elaboration of your own for the issues in paragraph 2.","topics":["evidence","governance","gpai","gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 56 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/56","label":"Read Article 56 in the AI Act Explorer"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","label":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice at the European Commission"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-72-post-market-monitoring-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-72-post-market-monitoring-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-72-post-market-monitoring-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a18ec7e58d627144f8421441a9201ab887912716bcd16766e589d779216eef36","label":"Monitoring plan and reports","summary":"The plan as part of the technical documentation plus the periodic analyses and follow-up actions.","topics":["evidence","post-market"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-73-incident-reporting-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-73-incident-reporting-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-73-incident-reporting-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"fb0ba99f9bdac6eefd1c88a6bf50aa6400d1c69556f236bca616a9eb0c2b515f","label":"Incident register and reports","summary":"Record of incidents, analyses, reports to supervisors and corrective measures.","topics":["evidence","post-market"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-78-submission-register","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-78-submission-register","type":"evidence","slug":"article-78-submission-register","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"7f0b4c2661b1eff2583e0610b30ab07aff9916ba1ec11d1e0ffcb1379c03fba5","label":"Register of submissions to authorities","summary":"Per submission: which system, which document, which version, to which recipient, on what date, which part was marked confidential, and which purpose the recipient stated.","topics":["enforcement","evidence","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-78-confidentiality"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 78 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/78","label":"Read Article 78 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-9-risk-management-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:article-9-risk-management-record","type":"evidence","slug":"article-9-risk-management-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"20554dec6405ccab0e623e6efb0f1bdecfb6a777ca09760e48b3981ff0aa3e56","label":"Risk management file","summary":"Versioned record of risk analyses, chosen measures, residual risks and test results per system version.","topics":["evidence","high-risk-requirements"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-9-risk-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:conformity-ce-registration-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:conformity-ce-registration-record","type":"evidence","slug":"conformity-ce-registration-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"abb03c902019896fde8cba3a0acad7168ed37188298d59f9ae7d6916a3271be9","label":"Conformity file","summary":"The assessment, EU declaration of conformity, CE marking and registration proof, per system version.","topics":["conformity","evidence"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:conformity-ce-registration"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:fria-report","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:fria-report","type":"evidence","slug":"fria-report","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"e1a8981a104a700cd8e8138d96d56c30865ee1c30ba8e7757002d59e9dc51a94","label":"FRIA report and notification","summary":"Dated impact assessment, measures, residual risks and, where required, notification to the market surveillance authority.","topics":["evidence","fundamental-rights"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:credit-or-insurance-deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-service-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:gpai-compliance-file","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:gpai-compliance-file","type":"evidence","slug":"gpai-compliance-file","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"7262c79821f4a681772adcd2c0841fa9bfbb6e4c59124704064543d75cd6d2dc","label":"GPAI compliance file","summary":"Current technical documentation, downstream information, copyright policy and public training summary.","topics":["evidence","gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:gpai-representative-mandate-file","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:gpai-representative-mandate-file","type":"evidence","slug":"gpai-representative-mandate-file","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c48344fa977400be55c1d5713e695114d36fd9a1af8343301b43ea121cd8eb7b","label":"Mandate file of the authorised representative","summary":"The written mandate itself, in an official language of the institutions of the Union, together with the copy of the Annex XI technical documentation, the contact details of the provider, and the record of the verification under paragraph 3(a). The provider grants the mandate and supplies the documentation; the ten year retention after the placing on the market rests under paragraph 3(b) with the representative, which keeps the file at the disposal of the AI Office and national competent authorities.","topics":["evidence","gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 54 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:notified-body-standing-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:notified-body-standing-record","type":"evidence","slug":"notified-body-standing-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"56f9eda5647bd23dbf43d538f9e3e670bb286785ece80df1ce6d64f4aa52eabe","label":"File on the chosen notified body","summary":"Per body: identification number, Member State of establishment, the conformity assessment activities and system types for which it is notified, the date of each check against the public list, the outcome of the independence test, the subcontracted tasks with your written agreement, and every notice of a change to its designation.","topics":["conformity","evidence","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Chapter III, Section 4, on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/31","label":"Read Article 31 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:systemic-risk-notification-file","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:systemic-risk-notification-file","type":"evidence","slug":"systemic-risk-notification-file","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"905f723bedbd08a93711a9b87bff0a323bc966b6062131c4f19119025d149bc0","label":"Systemic-risk notification file","summary":"Per model version: the measured and planned training compute with the scope of recital 111, so including pre-training, synthetic data generation and fine-tuning, the moment the threshold was reached or foreseen, the notification sent with its supporting information, any arguments under paragraph 2, any reassessment request under paragraph 5, and the response or designation decision of the Commission.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 52 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:value-chain-representative-record","legacy_id":"raip:evidence:value-chain-representative-record","type":"evidence","slug":"value-chain-representative-record","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"8a1a79ce12646a7074a1a5732b7048064013029c563b9f5c1601a324b774ad09","label":"Value-chain file","summary":"Record per system of role, contractual arrangements on information and cooperation, and the appointment of a representative where required.","topics":["evidence","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:value-chain-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-artikel-4-gezichtsherkenning-toegangscontrole","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-artikel-4-gezichtsherkenning-toegangscontrole","type":"example","slug":"example-artikel-4-gezichtsherkenning-toegangscontrole","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"595c5cc236618a40fa4882c79603f0febc9762b4165cdf0ac60b70bdbbe5c457","label":"Facial recognition at access control: the guard behind the camera counts too","summary":"An organisation secures the entrances to its buildings with facial recognition and uses that biometric access control to register visitors as well. When the system returns no match, a security officer reviews the camera images and decides personally whether someone may enter. The question is whose measures have to reach that officer: those of the supplier of the model, those of the department that deploys the system, or both.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 4(1) provides that providers and deployers of AI systems shall take measures to support the development of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf. In doing so they must take into account technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, and consider the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems are to be used. The same provision states that this obligation does not require providers or deployers to guarantee any specific level of AI literacy of any individual.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read the phrase about the persons on whom the system is used as the centre of gravity for biometrics: whoever stands in front of the camera is subject to the outcome and has little to set against it. That argues for equipping the officer who decides for himself when no match comes back more substantively than the colleague who merely switches the system on and off. The article itself names no sufficient level and expressly states that you need not guarantee one, so where the floor lies for each role stays open. In our assessment a record kept per role, stating the choice made and the reason for it, is easier to defend than one organisation-wide session backed only by an attendance list.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-artikel-4-politie-opsporingsanalyse","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-artikel-4-politie-opsporingsanalyse","type":"example","slug":"example-artikel-4-politie-opsporingsanalyse","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"60ac6751cd1959be17d92f129f223cca3fae064e4dfa4eed6759a8d2f88b5297","label":"Police using AI in investigations: context sets how deep the training goes","summary":"A police force uses AI to search large volumes of investigation files and surface connections a detective would otherwise miss. The outputs feed into the choice of which suspect is pursued further and end up in documents that enter the criminal process. The question is whether one and the same basic instruction is enough for the analyst operating the model and for the detective who acts on its output.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 4(1) requires providers and deployers of AI systems to take measures supporting the development of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf. The provision prescribes that they take into account technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, as well as the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems are to be used. It also states that this obligation does not require any specific level of AI literacy of any individual to be guaranteed.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Article 4 requires you to weigh the context of use and the people the system is applied to, and in law enforcement both factors run high on our reading. Whether a general introduction to what AI can do is then enough for someone carrying an output into a file that affects a person's position as a suspect, we doubt, but the provision expressly names no level you must guarantee, so that floor is yours to justify. We would record for each role what someone must be able to recognise, for instance that a discovered connection is not yet evidence, and revisit that choice periodically.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-artikel-4-redactie-generatieve-content","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-artikel-4-redactie-generatieve-content","type":"example","slug":"example-artikel-4-redactie-generatieve-content","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c17ece0eea8b5b5b7f25d80eb389c31dbc5e18c57449d3e19d41d7ba2b0a8658","label":"Newsroom with generative AI: do freelancers count within your measures?","summary":"A newsroom uses generative AI to prepare summaries, headlines and imagery, after which an editor finishes the piece and the desk decides to publish. Part of that work sits with freelancers, and an outside agency produces marketing content with the same tools. The question is whether your AI literacy measures must reach those freelancers and that agency, or only the people on the payroll.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 4(1) is addressed to providers and deployers of AI systems and requires them to take measures supporting the development of AI literacy of their staff and of other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf. The provision requires them to take into account technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, as well as the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems are to be used. It does not require any specific level of AI literacy of any individual to be guaranteed.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Alongside staff, the text expressly names other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on your behalf, and we read that as a functional boundary rather than a contractual one. On that reading a freelance editor using your tool inside your workflow and on your instruction sits within your measures, employment contract or not. The outside agency is a harder case: if it works in your environment and on your instruction, the argument that it acts on your behalf holds up, but if it runs its own tools on its own account it is a deployer in its own right, and Article 4 does not say your measures must cover that work. In practice, in our assessment, that means recording in your agreements who works in which role and what instruction you give, rather than trusting the other side to arrange it.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-artikel-50-ai-chat-sollicitanten","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-artikel-50-ai-chat-sollicitanten","type":"example","slug":"example-artikel-50-ai-chat-sollicitanten","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"bbf1f3c5c8847982509ad7a4d086b513a5e0742db0e4415b178f1cdd5cfe1bc2","label":"AI chat in recruitment and selection: what the applicant must be told","summary":"A recruiter deploys an AI chat that puts candidates through a first screening conversation after they respond to a job posting, and adds their answers to their CV. The chat introduces itself with a first name and writes in a casual conversational tone. The question is whether these applicants reasonably realise that they are talking to an AI system.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 50(1) requires providers to ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the point of view of a natural person who is reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect, taking into account the circumstances and the context of use. Article 50(5) provides that this information must be given to the natural persons concerned in a clear and distinguishable manner at the latest at the time of the first interaction, and must conform to the applicable accessibility requirements.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 50(1) and (5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read the obviousness test as a question about the audience the system actually meets, and in recruitment and selection that audience is not a trained professional group but a broad set of applicants under pressure who do not yet know the organisation. A human first name and a casual tone push that assessment the wrong way in our view, however well they convert. If you buy the chat rather than build it, Article 50(1) is by its wording addressed to the provider, while you are the one choosing the persona and the entry point; whether putting your own name on such a chat moves you into the provider role is a question Article 50 does not answer. So make the disclosure in the first message a procurement requirement and verify at delivery that it is genuinely there.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 50(1) and (5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding","type":"example","slug":"example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"10323fa9be53a342a148727da06c2c2e2326f11f0d1102e4586b4686a08f6df9","label":"Performance scoring for staff goes wrong: report or not","summary":"An employer uses an AI system that scores employee performance and lets that score weigh in promotion and dismissal. After a change to the model it turns out that a group of staff was scored too low for months, and decisions have already been taken on those scores. HR wonders whether this is a serious incident and who would have to report it.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 3, point (49) defines a serious incident as an incident or malfunctioning of an AI system that directly or indirectly leads to, among other things, the infringement of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights. Article 73(1) places the duty to report serious incidents on the provider of the high-risk AI system placed on the Union market, towards the market surveillance authorities of the Member State where the incident occurred. Article 73(2) requires the report to be made immediately after the provider has established a causal link between the AI system and the serious incident, or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and in any event no later than 15 days after the provider or, where applicable, the deployer becomes aware of the serious incident, with the period taking account of the severity of the incident. Article 73(6) obliges the provider, after reporting, to perform the necessary investigations without delay in relation to the serious incident and the AI system concerned, including a risk assessment and corrective action, cooperating with the competent authorities and, where relevant, with the notified body concerned. Article 26(5) requires a deployer that has identified a serious incident to inform, immediately, first the provider and then the importer or distributor and the relevant market surveillance authorities.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2) and (6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"In the workplace the hard part is the awareness trigger in Article 73(2): harm spread thinly across many employees does not arrive as an alarm but trickles in through complaints, a performance review or the works council. Whether systematically low scores that feed into promotion and dismissal amount to a serious incident depends, on our reading, on whether obligations protecting fundamental rights have thereby been infringed within the meaning of Article 3, point (49)(c); Article 73 does not make that assessment for you. Decide in advance which HR signal counts as an incident signal and who puts it in front of the provider that same week, rather than reconstructing that afterwards; Article 26(5) also requires you as deployer, once you have identified a serious incident, to inform the provider immediately and then the importer or distributor and the market surveillance authority. Note finally that the corrective action in Article 73(6) concerns the system; what should happen to promotion or dismissal decisions already taken is, on our reading, not answered by this article and runs through other rules, employment law among them.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2) and (6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-ernstig-incident-productielijn-meldtermijn","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-ernstig-incident-productielijn-meldtermijn","type":"example","slug":"example-ernstig-incident-productielijn-meldtermijn","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"ebe7b7020fc00e471f22844f0b97ed3e30f6702e78b04c376cd86720ec3d51bd","label":"Serious incident on the production line: who reports and within what deadline","summary":"A manufacturer supplies an AI system that runs as a safety component in a machine on the production line and at the same time drives quality control. At a customer's factory an operator is seriously injured after the machine failed to stop on an anomaly. The question is who reports, to whom, and which clock is already running at that moment.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 73(1) places the reporting of serious incidents on the provider of the high-risk AI system placed on the Union market, addressed to the market surveillance authorities of the Member State where the incident occurred. Article 73(2) requires that report to be made immediately after the provider has established a causal link between the AI system and the serious incident, or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and in any event no later than 15 days after the provider or, where applicable, the deployer becomes aware of the incident, with the reporting period taking account of the severity of the incident. Article 73(4) shortens that to no later than 10 days in the event of the death of a person. Article 73(6) obliges the provider, following the report, to perform the necessary investigations without delay, including a risk assessment and corrective action, and not to perform any investigation involving alteration of the AI system in a way that may affect the subsequent evaluation of the causes of the incident without first informing the competent authorities. Article 26(5) requires a deployer that has identified a serious incident to inform, immediately, first the provider and then the importer or distributor and the relevant market surveillance authorities, and makes Article 73 apply mutatis mutandis where the deployer cannot reach the provider.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 73(1), (2), (4) and (6), and Article 26(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 73(2) as meaning that the clock can already start at the deployer on the factory floor, while the report under Article 73(1) sits with you as the provider of the AI system. That does not leave your customer free to sit still: Article 26(5) gives the deployer a notification route of its own, running past you, the importer or distributor and the market surveillance authority, and makes Article 73 apply mutatis mutandis if you cannot be reached. Fix that route in the contract and in the service line before anything happens. Where an operator is seriously injured but does not die, we read the outer limit of Article 73(2) as the one in play rather than the 10 days of Article 73(4); how much sooner than that outer limit you must report is left open by the text and turns on severity. Bear in mind as well that the reflex to repair the machine immediately and resume production can collide with Article 73(6), because an investigation that alters the system first requires notice to the competent authority. Working that out only during the incident costs days that these deadlines do not allow.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 73(1), (2), (4) and (6), and Article 26(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-fria-bijstandsuitkering-gemeente","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-fria-bijstandsuitkering-gemeente","type":"example","slug":"example-fria-bijstandsuitkering-gemeente","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"563700f6a56bbda6f2fd701e38b2eeb9df22a2523f7612fe1109c68a791ffe42","label":"Awarding social assistance in a municipality: the FRIA and the notification","summary":"A municipality wants to deploy an AI system that sorts applications for social assistance benefits and indicates which files merit extra scrutiny before a case worker decides. The application is already listed in the public algorithm register. The question is what has to be in place before the first citizen passes through this system.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 27(1) requires deployers which are bodies governed by public law, or private entities providing public services, to perform an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights that the use of a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2) may produce, prior to deploying it, with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III. That assessment covers, among other elements, the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected, the specific risks of harm to those categories, the implementation of human oversight measures, and the measures to be taken if those risks materialise, including the arrangements for internal governance and complaint mechanisms. Article 27(3) provides that once the assessment has been performed, the deployer shall notify the market surveillance authority of its results and submit the filled-out template referred to in paragraph 5 as part of that notification, and that in the case referred to in Article 46(1) deployers may be exempt from that obligation to notify. Article 27(5) provides that the AI Office shall develop a template for a questionnaire, including through an automated tool, to facilitate deployers in complying with their obligations under this Article in a simplified manner.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 27(1), (3) and (5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 27 as making the municipality the most obvious deployer here, and as requiring the assessment to be complete before the first application runs through the system, not as an account rendered afterwards. That duty does depend first on whether this system is high-risk at all: does it help decide entitlement to social assistance, or does it stay within a preparatory or narrowly procedural task under Article 6(3), which closes its own exception again once the system profiles citizens? Answer that question before you start on paragraph 1. An entry in the public algorithm register is on our reading something different from the assessment under paragraph 1, and it does not replace notifying the market surveillance authority of the results. In practice it pays to record the citizen's complaint route and the case worker's room to depart from the signal in the same file, because paragraph 1 asks for precisely those two elements.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 27(1), (3) and (5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-fria-recidiverisico-politie","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-fria-recidiverisico-politie","type":"example","slug":"example-fria-recidiverisico-politie","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"3136fdfa784bcee684810eafa3fc784e9ff1905adf38d86767b1e6daed7c37da","label":"Recidivism scoring in police work: when the assessment must be redone","summary":"A police service deploys an AI system that estimates the recidivism risk of a suspect, as an aid to the judgements later made by the prosecution service and the court. The model is subsequently retrained on newer investigative data and use is extended to a second region. The question is whether the assessment made for first use remains adequate.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 27(1) requires deployers which are bodies governed by public law to perform, prior to deploying a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights that its use may produce, with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III. That assessment consists of a description of the processes in which the system will be used, of the period and frequency of use, of the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected, of the specific risks of harm taking into account the information given by the provider pursuant to Article 13, of the implementation of human oversight measures according to the instructions for use, and of the measures to be taken if those risks materialise. Article 27(2) provides that the obligation applies to the first use, that previously conducted impact assessments or existing assessments carried out by the provider may be relied on in similar cases, and that a deployer who considers during use that any element listed in paragraph 1 has changed or is no longer up to date shall take the necessary steps to update the information. Article 27(3) provides that the results are notified to the market surveillance authority together with the filled-out template, and that in the case referred to in Article 46(1) an exemption from that notification duty may apply.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 27(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 27 as covering a police service as a body governed by public law under paragraph 1, and as an assessment that does not stop at first use: retraining on newer investigative data or extending use to a second region touches the elements of paragraph 1 and, on our reading, calls for updating the record. That retraining also raises a question Article 27 itself does not answer, namely whether the change goes far enough to count as a substantial modification, which would make you a provider in your own right under Article 25. Bear in mind as well that the exception in paragraph 3 concerns, on our reading, the notification and not the assessment itself. Finally, start that assessment only after establishing that the deployment as such is permitted, because Article 5 rules out certain predictive applications in criminal investigation.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 27(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-fria-selectie-inschrijving-hogeschool","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-fria-selectie-inschrijving-hogeschool","type":"example","slug":"example-fria-selectie-inschrijving-hogeschool","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"81f378ec11bfd5271d13fa170d8d63f220e78317143a657af062421c1512c069","label":"Selection at student admission: a DPIA is not yet a FRIA","summary":"A university of applied sciences has an AI system rank applications for a vocational programme, using the exam results of earlier students to calibrate that ranking. A data protection impact assessment already exists for this processing. The question the school asks is whether that also covers the fundamental rights side of admission.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-service-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 27(1) provides that deployers which are bodies governed by public law, or private entities providing public services, and deployers of high-risk AI systems referred to in points 5(b) and (c) of Annex III, shall perform an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights prior to deploying a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area listed in point 2 of Annex III. That assessment consists of a description of the deployer's processes in which the system will be used in line with its intended purpose, of the period and frequency of use, of the categories of natural persons and groups likely to be affected, of the specific risks of harm to those categories, of the implementation of human oversight measures, and of the measures to be taken if those risks materialise, including the arrangements for internal governance and complaint mechanisms. Article 27(2) provides that the obligation applies to the first use, that the deployer may in similar cases rely on previously conducted impact assessments or existing assessments carried out by the provider, and that a deployer who considers during use that any element listed in paragraph 1 has changed or is no longer up to date shall take the necessary steps to update the information. Article 27(4) provides that where an obligation under this Article is already met through the data protection impact assessment conducted pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the assessment under paragraph 1 complements that data protection impact assessment.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 27(1), (2) and (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 27 as placing the education institution that runs this selection itself in the deployer role, but that alone does not settle the duty. Paragraph 1 names bodies governed by public law and private entities providing public services, and whether a state-funded or a private university of applied sciences answers to either description is the question you have to settle first. If it does, an existing data protection impact assessment is on our reading the starting point rather than the last word: paragraph 4 has the fundamental rights assessment sit alongside it, and since Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 that assessment may incorporate or cross-refer to relevant parts of it, so the real question is which elements of paragraph 1 are still missing. For you that means recording which groups of students may be affected, how the admissions committee or the teacher can correct an outcome, and where a rejected applicant can lodge a complaint. If the selection rule or the assessment component underpinning the ranking changes, that is on our reading the moment to update the record, rather than the start of the next academic year.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 27(1), (2) and (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-logging-hogeschool-aanmelding-toetsing","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-logging-hogeschool-aanmelding-toetsing","type":"example","slug":"example-logging-hogeschool-aanmelding-toetsing","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"87cc04e5994d67a08654e7bda8c7ea6eb508508cf029630e0faf71818cbd70bb","label":"Logging in admission and assessment: what the institution keeps in its own hands","summary":"A university of applied sciences uses a purchased AI system that ranks student admissions and also raises flags during digital assessment. The logs sit in the supplier environment, which hands them over on request. The teaching organisation wonders whether that settles the matter or whether the school retains a duty of its own.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 12(1) requires a high-risk AI system to technically allow for the automatic recording of events (logs) over the lifetime of the system, and Article 12(2) ties that recording to a level of traceability appropriate to the intended purpose of the system. Article 26(6) provides that deployers keep the automatically generated logs to the extent those logs are under their control, for a period appropriate to the intended purpose, of at least six months, unless applicable Union or national law provides otherwise, in particular Union law on the protection of personal data. Article 19(1) places a corresponding retention duty on providers for the logs generated by their systems that are under their control, likewise for at least six months.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 12(1) and (2), Article 19(1) and Article 26(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"On our reading, the fact that the supplier hosts the logs does not by itself place the school outside Article 26(6): what matters is whether the logs are under its control. The Regulation does not define that notion, and on our reading server location is not decisive in itself; the question is whether you can actually and contractually dispose of those logs, and it has to be answered for each procurement. So agree at procurement that the institution can request, export and itself retain the logs for the chosen period, and record which admission and assessment events that covers. Take data protection into account at the same time, because the same provision allows other Union or national law to cap the retention period.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 12(1) and (2), Article 19(1) and Article 26(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-logging-productielijn-veiligheidscomponent","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-logging-productielijn-veiligheidscomponent","type":"example","slug":"example-logging-productielijn-veiligheidscomponent","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"624d417df4b70bdd1072de6b663f188dd48de9556bd5866eabfc9f1da5fe3d3a","label":"Logging on the production line: which logs the manufacturer keeps and which the factory keeps","summary":"A manufacturer supplies an AI system that runs as a safety component inside the machinery of a production line and also drives quality control. The factory operating the line keeps only the alerts visible in the local controller; the rest of the recording flows to the supplier environment. The question is who has to keep which logs when it later has to be reconstructed why the line was halted.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 12(1) requires high-risk AI systems to technically allow for the automatic recording of events (logs) over the lifetime of the system. Under Article 12(2), those logging capabilities must enable the recording of events relevant for identifying situations that may result in the system presenting a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) or in a substantial modification, for facilitating the post-market monitoring referred to in Article 72, and for monitoring the operation of the high-risk AI systems referred to in Article 26(5). Article 19(1) obliges providers to keep those automatically generated logs to the extent they are under their control, for a period appropriate to the intended purpose of the system, of at least six months, unless applicable Union or national law provides otherwise. Article 26(6) places a corresponding retention duty on deployers for the logs under their control, with the same six-month floor.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 12(1) and (2), Article 19(1) and Article 26(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 19 together with Article 26(6) as leaving the manufacturer, acting here as the provider, and the factory, acting as the deployer, each with a retention duty of its own for the logs under its control. The Regulation does not say when logs count as being under your control, and on our reading the place where the recording physically lands does not settle that by itself; the question has to be answered system by system. For a production line that means recording which events stay in the machinery controller and which travel to the supplier, and securing access to that second set contractually before you need it. Leave that unarranged and you risk being unable to trace a line stoppage or a quality control rejection back to the behaviour of the system.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 12(1) and (2), Article 19(1) and Article 26(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-logging-taakverdeling-werkvloer","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-logging-taakverdeling-werkvloer","type":"example","slug":"example-logging-taakverdeling-werkvloer","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"be80038e3b50070a20f07e501c8a3a9c35fff975654135c454e9a4c5a9b96545","label":"Logging in task allocation at work: evidence about the system or a file on the employee","summary":"An employer deploys an AI system that handles task allocation among staff and summarises their performance for the performance review. HR wants to know what record of those outcomes has to be retained when an employee objects months later to a promotion decision.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 12(1) requires high-risk AI systems to technically allow for the automatic recording of events (logs) over the lifetime of the system. Article 12(2)(c) names, as one of the purposes of those logging capabilities, monitoring the operation of the systems referred to in Article 26(5), and that paragraph obliges deployers to monitor operation on the basis of the instructions for use and, where relevant, to inform the provider in accordance with Article 72. Article 26(6) obliges deployers to keep the automatically generated logs to the extent they are under their control, for a period appropriate to the intended purpose, of at least six months, unless applicable Union or national law provides otherwise. Article 19(1) sets out a corresponding retention duty for providers, with the same six-month floor.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 12(1) and (2)(c), Article 19(1) and Article 26(5) and (6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 12(2) as putting the logging capabilities there first of all to follow risks, substantial modifications and the operation of the system, not to sharpen judgements about individual staff. Whether that statement of purpose also limits what the retained logs may later be used for is something Article 12 does not say: on our reading that limit has to come from data protection law, to which Article 26(6) itself refers. For HR a practical line follows: keep what is needed to trace an outcome and to carry out the monitoring under Article 26(5), and settle in writing beforehand whether those same files may double as a performance record. Bear in mind that the six-month floor can be shorter than the period within which an employee challenges a promotion decision; the Regulation does not govern that evidential position.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 12(1) and (2)(c), Article 19(1) and Article 26(5) and (6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-politie-model-bijtrainen-opsporing","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-politie-model-bijtrainen-opsporing","type":"example","slug":"example-politie-model-bijtrainen-opsporing","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f76e99119daefd7c5cfc07f8db92500ea93ce6a13b3e86aff47818a0a15cb89a","label":"Police fine-tuning a model for investigations: settle the role question first","summary":"A police service fine-tunes an open general-purpose model on its own files from ongoing criminal investigations, so that detectives can see links between suspects and cases sooner. The fine-tuned model stays inside the service and is not made available to anyone else. The question is whether the service thereby becomes a provider of a general-purpose AI model itself, and so falls under Article 53.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 53(1) requires providers of general-purpose AI models to do four things: draw up and keep up-to-date the technical documentation of the model, including its training and testing process and the results of its evaluation, containing at a minimum the information set out in Annex XI so that it can be provided on request to the AI Office and the national competent authorities; draw up, keep up-to-date and make available information and documentation to providers of AI systems who intend to integrate the model, containing at a minimum the elements set out in Annex XII; put in place a policy to comply with Union law on copyright and related rights; and draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary about the content used for training, according to a template provided by the AI Office. Article 53(2) provides that the obligations under points (a) and (b) do not apply to providers of models released under a free and open-source licence that allows for the access, usage, modification and distribution of the model, and whose parameters, including the weights, the information on the model architecture and the information on model usage, are made publicly available, and that this exception does not apply to general-purpose AI models with systemic risks.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 53(1) and (2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Start with your role, because merely using someone else's model does not by itself make you a model provider; Article 53 does not say at what point a service that fine-tunes crosses that line, and the point deserves an explicit answer rather than an assumption. A further question comes before Article 53: whether your fine-tuned investigation model has been placed on the market within the meaning of the Regulation. That it never leaves the service does not settle this on its own, since the Commission's guidelines on the scope of the obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models also treat internal use affecting the rights of natural persons as placing on the market. We read paragraph 2 as attaching the open-source exception to your own model rather than carrying it over automatically from the model you started out with: if you do not publish the weights and architecture of the fine-tuned model, which is the obvious course in criminal matters, then on that reading the exception is not open to you, and the duties under points (c) and (d) remain in place in any event, since paragraph 2 lifts only points (a) and (b). So record, version by version, exactly what you changed, on which data and to what end, because that record is what decides whether you stand here as a user or as a provider.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 53(1) and (2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-post-market-monitoring-hr-beoordelingssysteem","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-post-market-monitoring-hr-beoordelingssysteem","type":"example","slug":"example-post-market-monitoring-hr-beoordelingssysteem","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"834c3d7f217e8710ac5698e4b555f10d6b66e59eddbb6facca765496ad4b791d","label":"Assessing staff: signals from the workplace flowing back to the provider","summary":"A provider supplies a system that summarises employee performance data and supports HR in promotion decisions. After a year in use, departments turn out to apply it differently than intended, and managers factor the outputs into the performance review. The question is what the provider is supposed to know about that.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 72(1) requires providers to establish and document a post-market monitoring system in a manner proportionate to the nature of the AI technologies and the risks of the high-risk AI system. Article 72(2) requires that system to actively and systematically collect, document and analyse relevant data, which may be provided by deployers or collected through other sources, on performance throughout the system's lifetime, allowing the provider to evaluate continuous compliance with the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2. Article 72(3) provides that the system is based on a plan forming part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV, and instructs the Commission to adopt an implementing act laying down detailed provisions establishing a template for that plan and the list of elements to be included in it; the Regulation sets 2 February 2026 as the date for that act.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 72(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Our reading is that use which departs from what was intended is exactly the kind of real-world data paragraph 2 has in mind, because it bears on the human oversight and the intended purpose laid down in Section 2. Paragraph 3 points to a Commission template for which the Regulation sets 2 February 2026 as the date; check whether that template has since been adopted and align with it if so, since paragraph 4 refers to it as well. In the meantime we would not put the design of your monitoring on hold for it: which data you need already follows from the requirements the system must continue to meet. Agree with the organisations using the system on the route by which employee complaints and deviations in assessments reach you.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 72(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-post-market-monitoring-proctoring-tentamens","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-post-market-monitoring-proctoring-tentamens","type":"example","slug":"example-post-market-monitoring-proctoring-tentamens","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"683c18d4fac97ff4db4363416589f34e9615625ed4323784e0b292b8d25ad231","label":"Proctoring during exams: which real-world data the institution reports back","summary":"A vendor offers proctoring software that flags possible cheating during exams. Several universities of applied sciences use the system, each with its own assessment formats and its own student populations. The vendor wants to know which real-world data it must keep collecting after roll-out, and from whom.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 72(1) requires providers to establish and document a post-market monitoring system, proportionate to the nature of the AI technologies and the risks of the system. Article 72(2) provides that this system actively and systematically collects, documents and analyses relevant data which may be provided by deployers or collected through other sources on the performance of high-risk AI systems throughout their lifetime, and which allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of those systems with the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2. Where relevant, monitoring includes an analysis of the interaction with other AI systems. Article 72(3) provides that the system is based on a plan forming part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 72(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"The duty sits with the provider, but the useful signals arise in education itself: unfounded suspicions, student complaints, differences between programmes and assessment formats. Our reading is that paragraph 2 allows deployers to supply that data while leaving the duty to collect and analyse it with the provider. What the article does not settle is the route by which the data reaches you, or whether the institutions are bound to supply it; that is something you have to arrange with them and cannot read out of Article 72. We would therefore fix that route before the system goes live, and would also set out in the plan how you break performance down by assessment format and by group, since an average across all schools hides precisely the pattern you are looking for.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 72(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-post-market-monitoring-veiligheidscomponent-productielijn","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-post-market-monitoring-veiligheidscomponent-productielijn","type":"example","slug":"example-post-market-monitoring-veiligheidscomponent-productielijn","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"b1ed8bb9e9486b8528de2cce401e4f0ce0bed59bd284ede4a90ac5703f85dc09","label":"Safety component on the production line: the manufacturer keeps watching after delivery","summary":"A manufacturer supplies an AI safety component that halts machinery on a production line as soon as someone comes too close to the robot. The component already falls under product legislation for machinery, and the manufacturer runs quality control and incident follow-up for it. The question is what Article 72 adds on top of that.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 72(1) requires providers to establish and document a post-market monitoring system in a manner proportionate to the nature of the AI technologies and the risks of the high-risk AI system. Article 72(3) provides that this system is based on a post-market monitoring plan, and that the plan forms part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV. Article 72(4) gives providers of high-risk AI systems covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, where a post-market monitoring system and plan are already established under that legislation, the choice of integrating the necessary elements described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 into those systems and plans, using the template referred to in paragraph 3, provided this achieves an equivalent level of protection.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 72(1), (3) and (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Our reading is that Article 72 does not force a second, separate monitoring structure here: paragraph 4 gives you the choice of housing the elements in the system and plan you already run under product legislation, using the template from paragraph 3 and as long as the level of protection remains equivalent. That route stands or falls on a question the article does not answer for you: does the applicable product legislation genuinely have an established post-market monitoring system and plan, or do you run quality control and incident follow-up that were never established as such. Beyond that, you need to be able to show that the signals coming off the factory floor genuinely speak to continued compliance with the high-risk AI requirements, and not only to the mechanical safety of the machine. We would therefore record, for each production signal, which requirement it touches, so that integration does not become dilution.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 72(1), (3) and (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding","type":"example","slug":"example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"9acab6c994b68ac7110c3307f8907ee18580a895ef51f8ed17588a3e03b73504","label":"Proctoring during an exam overshoots: from signal to reporting duty","summary":"A university of applied sciences uses proctoring software during an online exam and finds that a group of students is systematically and wrongly flagged as suspicious, after which grades were withdrawn. Teaching staff and the examination board want to know whether this pattern is a serious incident and, if so, who has to report it and within what time.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 3, point (49) defines a serious incident as an incident or malfunctioning of an AI system that directly or indirectly leads to, among other things, the infringement of obligations under Union law intended to protect fundamental rights. Article 73(1) obliges the provider of a high-risk AI system placed on the Union market to report serious incidents to the market surveillance authorities of the Member State where the incident occurred. Article 73(2) requires the report to be made immediately after the provider has established the causal link or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and in any event no later than 15 days after the provider or, where applicable, the deployer becomes aware of the serious incident. Article 73(5) allows an initial, incomplete report followed by a complete report where this is necessary to ensure timely reporting. Article 73(7) provides that upon receiving a report concerning a serious incident as referred to in Article 3, point (49)(c), the market surveillance authority informs the national public authorities or bodies referred to in Article 77(1). Article 26(5) requires a deployer that has identified a serious incident to inform, immediately, first the provider and then the importer or distributor and the relevant market surveillance authorities.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2), (5) and (7)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 73 as meaning that an incident in education is rarely a single dramatic moment: the signal sits in the pattern in exam results, and the institution sees that pattern before the software supplier does. Whether that pattern amounts to a serious incident is a separate question: it turns on whether the wrongful flagging and the withdrawal of grades count as an infringement of obligations protecting fundamental rights within the meaning of Article 3, point (49)(c), and Article 73 does not make that assessment for you. Leaving the question open until your own investigation is finished carries a risk, because the Article 73(2) period runs from awareness. Set up your examination and complaints process so that such a pattern reaches the provider within days; Article 26(5) also puts a notification duty on the institution itself as deployer, towards the provider, the importer or distributor and the market surveillance authority. The initial, incomplete report of Article 73(5) is the pressure valve here; waiting for a finished investigation report is not.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2), (5) and (7)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-toelating-hogeschool-registratie-eu-databank","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-toelating-hogeschool-registratie-eu-databank","type":"example","slug":"example-toelating-hogeschool-registratie-eu-databank","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"3d53527e1fe64875c7712e50282816d365b64c9b924e3a6965b22cf6c50a7dff","label":"Admission system at a higher education institution: who registers in the EU database","summary":"A higher education institution procures an AI system that organises student applications and enrolment and produces an admission recommendation for each candidate in its vocational programmes. The supplier says it handles the conformity assessment itself and affixes the CE marking. What is left unresolved is whether the institution still has a step of its own to take before the system goes into use in its teaching.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:conformity-ce-registration"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 43(2) provides that for high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III, providers follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control set out in Annex VI, which does not provide for the involvement of a notified body. Article 47(1) requires the provider to draw up, for each high-risk AI system, a written machine-readable, physical or electronically signed EU declaration of conformity and to keep it at the disposal of the national competent authorities for ten years after the system has been placed on the market or put into service. Article 49(1) requires the provider or, where applicable, the authorised representative to register themselves and their system in the EU database referred to in Article 71 before an Annex III high-risk system is placed on the market or put into service, with the exception of the systems listed in point 2 of Annex III. Article 49(3) provides that deployers that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, or persons acting on their behalf, register themselves, select the system and register its use in that same database before putting such a system into service or using it, again with the exception of the systems listed in point 2 of Annex III.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 43(2), Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) and (3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"We read Article 49 as two separate registrations: paragraph 1 covers the provider and its system, paragraph 3 covers your own use, and on that reading the first does not relieve you of the second. The hinge question for the institution is therefore not whether the supplier does its job, but whether it is a public authority within the meaning of paragraph 3. The Regulation does not define that term, and until that is settled it remains open whether the institution must itself appear in the EU database. In practice we would move the request for the EU declaration of conformity and the registration number into the procurement stage, so that the question does not turn into a blocker just before an application period opens.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 43(2), Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) and (3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-webshop-kredietcheck-technisch-dossier","legacy_id":"raip:example:example-webshop-kredietcheck-technisch-dossier","type":"example","slug":"example-webshop-kredietcheck-technisch-dossier","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d78a5fb746a80b877e3392af6e2f5baa03e844e1777db2c3b305ccb327eb0704","label":"Webshop builds its own consumer credit check: what belongs in the file","summary":"A non-food retail chain lets customers pay later in its webshop and decides at checkout whether a consumer qualifies. The team builds that assessment system in house, on top of a pre-trained model supplied by a vendor. The question is what has to be on record before the feature goes live, and who has to put it there.","topics":["examples"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-11-technical-documentation"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 11(1) requires the technical documentation of a high-risk AI system to be drawn up before that system is placed on the market or put into service, and to be kept up to date. It must be drawn up so as to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of that Section and to give national competent authorities and notified bodies the necessary information, in a clear and comprehensive form, to assess that compliance; it contains at a minimum the elements set out in Annex IV. Annex IV lists those elements as applicable to the AI system concerned, and asks among other things for the methods and steps performed for development, including, where relevant, recourse to pre-trained systems or tools provided by third parties and how those were used, integrated or modified by the provider, for the validation and testing procedures used, and for a description of relevant changes made by the provider to the system through its lifecycle. SMEs, including start-ups, may supply those elements in a simplified manner; where they take that route, they must use the simplified form the Commission is to establish for that purpose.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 11(1) and Annex IV","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Article 11 puts the documentation duty on the provider, so the first open question here is who that provider is. If the creditworthiness assessment of consumers counts as high-risk in your situation, then in our reading there is a strong case that a webshop assembling the system itself and putting it into service under its own name is no longer merely a deployer but ends up on the provider side, carrying the documentation duty that comes with it. Article 11 does not settle that allocation of roles, so test it against the definitions and against Article 25 before assuming the file is your vendor's problem. In our reading the hard part in retail is not the first version of the file but the pace afterwards, because a webshop often ships changes per release while the file stays frozen at the state it had when the feature went into service. So contract for the provenance, training and testing information that Annex IV expects from you when you buy the pre-trained model, and assign per release who updates the file.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 11(1) and Annex IV","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"editorial","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies","type":"obligation","slug":"article-28-39-notified-bodies","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"244200659e300ee841c99c7ece25bf19795a8036b16b7faca26e35a05ecae3b1","label":"Articles 28 to 39: notifying authorities and notified bodies","summary":"Section 4 of Chapter III governs who may carry out your conformity assessment and on what conditions that power continues to exist. Each Member State designates a notifying authority that assesses, designates, notifies and monitors conformity assessment bodies. A notified body is established under the national law of a Member State, has legal personality, and is independent of the provider, of any other operator with an economic interest and of the provider competitors; consultancy services in particular are ruled out. Subcontracting to a subcontractor or a subsidiary is allowed only with the agreement of the provider, and the body then retains full responsibility. In its work it avoids unnecessary burdens for providers and minimises administrative burdens and compliance costs for micro- and small enterprises, without giving up the required degree of rigour. Article 36 distinguishes the cases. Where it ceases its activities, the certificates remain valid under paragraph 3 for at most nine months, provided another notified body assumes responsibility in writing. Where its designation is suspended, restricted or withdrawn, it informs the providers concerned within ten days under paragraph 5; paragraph 8 sets continuity conditions there without that general nine-month limit, and paragraph 9 gives certificates a nine-month validity on withdrawal, with a conditional extension in periods of three months up to twelve months at most. A body from a third country can carry out these activities only where the Union has concluded an agreement with that country.","topics":["conformity","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"oversight_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:market-surveillance-authority"],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":"out_of_scope","interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:verify-notified-body-standing"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:notified-body-standing-record"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:notified-body-continuity-review"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-28-39-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-28-39-scope","operator":"all","description":"Practically engaged as soon as a notified body comes into the picture for your system. Within Annex III that is, under Article 43(1), only for the biometrics of point 1, and then only along the Annex VII procedure. Within Annex I, Section A, it happens through the sectoral conformity assessment of Article 43(3). For the systems of points 2 to 8 of Annex III, which follow the internal control of Annex VI, no notified body is involved and this Section has no direct bearing on you. The Section itself has applied since 2 August 2025 and therefore well before the underlying high-risk obligations bite: the notification chain has to exist before there is anything to assess."},{"id":"article-28-39-subcontracting-consent","operator":"all","description":"Article 33(3) makes the agreement of the provider a condition for subcontracting: activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the provider. That is a right you can exercise only if you ask about it, because the provision does not prescribe any active notice to you."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-28-39-third-country-bodies","operator":"not","description":"Article 39 rules out a free choice of a foreign body. Only conformity assessment bodies established under the law of a third country with which the Union has concluded an agreement may be authorised to carry out the activities of notified bodies, and then only where they meet the requirements laid down in Article 31 or ensure an equivalent level of compliance."},{"id":"article-28-39-presumption-limited","operator":"not","description":"The presumption in Article 32 is narrow. A conformity assessment body is presumed to comply with the requirements of Article 31 in so far as the applicable harmonised standards cover those requirements and their references have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Without that publication the presumption does not operate, and it never reaches further than what the standard covers."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 28(1) provides: Each Member State shall designate or establish at least one notifying authority responsible for setting up and carrying out the necessary procedures for the assessment, designation and notification of conformity assessment bodies and for their monitoring. Those procedures shall be developed in cooperation between the notifying authorities of all Member States. Paragraph 3 provides: Notifying authorities shall be established, organised and operated in such a way that no conflict of interest arises with conformity assessment bodies, and that the objectivity and impartiality of their activities are safeguarded. Paragraph 5 provides: Notifying authorities shall offer or provide neither any activities that conformity assessment bodies perform, nor any consultancy services on a commercial or competitive basis. Article 29(1) provides: Conformity assessment bodies shall submit an application for notification to the notifying authority of the Member State in which they are established. Paragraph 2 provides: The application for notification shall be accompanied by a description of the conformity assessment activities, the conformity assessment module or modules and the types of AI systems for which the conformity assessment body claims to be competent, as well as by an accreditation certificate, where one exists, issued by a national accreditation body attesting that the conformity assessment body fulfils the requirements laid down in Article 31. Article 30(1) provides: Notifying authorities may notify only conformity assessment bodies which have satisfied the requirements laid down in Article 31. Paragraph 2, as replaced by Article 1, point (16), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, provides: Notifying authorities shall notify the Commission and the other Member States, based on the list of codes, categories, and corresponding types of AI systems referred to in Annex XIV, and using the electronic notification tool developed and managed by the Commission, of each conformity assessment body referred to in paragraph 1. The second subparagraph of that paragraph empowers the Commission to amend Annex XIV by delegated act. Until 27 July 2026 paragraph 2 carried no such list of codes; since then it sets the scope of the designation. Paragraph 4 provides: The conformity assessment body concerned may perform the activities of a notified body only where no objections are raised by the Commission or the other Member States within two weeks of a notification by a notifying authority where it includes an accreditation certificate referred to in Article 29(2), or within two months of a notification by the notifying authority where it includes documentary evidence referred to in Article 29(3).","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 28(1), (3) and (5); Article 29(1) and (2); Article 30(1), (2) and (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 28(8), as added by Article 1, point (14), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, provides: notifying authorities designated pursuant to this Regulation that are responsible for AI systems covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I shall ensure that the conformity assessment body that applies for designation both pursuant to this Regulation and that legislation is provided with the possibility to submit a single application and undergoes a unified assessment procedure, where the relevant Union harmonisation legislation provides for such a procedure. A conformity assessment body designated pursuant to more than one piece of that legislation shall have to apply only once to be designated pursuant to this Regulation, and a designation pursuant to this Regulation shall be applicable for all Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I for which it is designated. Paragraph 9 provides that a notifying authority designated pursuant to that legislation is also the notifying authority for the application of that procedure, unless the Member State designates another notifying authority for this Regulation. Article 29(4), as replaced by Article 1, point (15), provides that notified bodies undergoing the unified assessment procedure shall submit the single application to the notifying authority designated pursuant to that Union harmonisation legislation.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, points (14) to (16), amending Articles 28, 29 and 30","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 31(1) provides: A notified body shall be established under the national law of a Member State and shall have legal personality. Paragraph 4 provides: Notified bodies shall be independent of the provider of a high-risk AI system in relation to which they perform conformity assessment activities. Notified bodies shall also be independent of any other operator having an economic interest in high-risk AI systems assessed, as well as of any competitors of the provider. This shall not preclude the use of assessed high-risk AI systems that are necessary for the operations of the conformity assessment body, or the use of such high-risk AI systems for personal purposes. Paragraph 5 provides: Neither a conformity assessment body, its top-level management nor the personnel responsible for carrying out its conformity assessment tasks shall be directly involved in the design, development, marketing or use of high-risk AI systems, nor shall they represent the parties engaged in those activities. They shall not engage in any activity that might conflict with their independence of judgement or integrity in relation to conformity assessment activities for which they are notified. This shall, in particular, apply to consultancy services. Paragraph 6 provides: Notified bodies shall be organised and operated so as to safeguard the independence, objectivity and impartiality of their activities. Paragraph 8 provides: Notified bodies shall have procedures for the performance of activities which take due account of the size of a provider, the sector in which it operates, its structure, and the degree of complexity of the AI system concerned. Paragraph 11 provides: The notified body shall have permanent availability of sufficient administrative, technical, legal and scientific personnel who possess experience and knowledge relating to the relevant types of AI systems, data and data computing, and relating to the requirements set out in Section 2.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 31(1), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (11)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 32 provides: Where a conformity assessment body demonstrates its conformity with the criteria laid down in the relevant harmonised standards or parts thereof, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, it shall be presumed to comply with the requirements set out in Article 31 in so far as the applicable harmonised standards cover those requirements. Article 33(1) provides: Where a notified body subcontracts specific tasks connected with the conformity assessment or has recourse to a subsidiary, it shall ensure that the subcontractor or the subsidiary meets the requirements laid down in Article 31, and shall inform the notifying authority accordingly. Paragraph 2 provides: Notified bodies shall take full responsibility for the tasks performed by any subcontractors or subsidiaries. Paragraph 3 provides: Activities may be subcontracted or carried out by a subsidiary only with the agreement of the provider. Notified bodies shall make a list of their subsidiaries publicly available. Paragraph 4 provides: The relevant documents concerning the assessment of the qualifications of the subcontractor or the subsidiary and the work carried out by them under this Regulation shall be kept at the disposal of the notifying authority for a period of five years from the termination date of the subcontracting.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 32; Article 33(1) to (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 34(1) provides: Notified bodies shall verify the conformity of high-risk AI systems in accordance with the conformity assessment procedures set out in Article 43. Paragraph 2 provides: Notified bodies shall avoid unnecessary burdens for providers when performing their activities, and take due account of the size of the provider, the sector in which it operates, its structure and the degree of complexity of the high-risk AI system concerned, in particular in view of minimising administrative burdens and compliance costs for micro- and small enterprises within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC. The notified body shall, nevertheless, respect the degree of rigour and the level of protection required for the compliance of the high-risk AI system with the requirements of this Regulation. Paragraph 3 provides: Notified bodies shall make available and submit upon request all relevant documentation, including the providers documentation, to the notifying authority referred to in Article 28 to allow that authority to conduct its assessment, designation, notification and monitoring activities, and to facilitate the assessment outlined in this Section. Article 35(1) provides: The Commission shall assign a single identification number to each notified body, even where a body is notified under more than one Union act. Paragraph 2 provides: The Commission shall make publicly available the list of the bodies notified under this Regulation, including their identification numbers and the activities for which they have been notified. The Commission shall ensure that the list is kept up to date.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 34(1) to (3); Article 35(1) and (2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 36(3) provides: Where a notified body decides to cease its conformity assessment activities, it shall inform the notifying authority and the providers concerned as soon as possible and, in the case of a planned cessation, at least one year before ceasing its activities. The certificates of the notified body may remain valid for a period of nine months after cessation of the notified body activities, on condition that another notified body has confirmed in writing that it will assume responsibilities for the high-risk AI systems covered by those certificates. The latter notified body shall complete a full assessment of the high-risk AI systems affected by the end of that nine-month-period before issuing new certificates for those systems. Where the notified body has ceased its activity, the notifying authority shall withdraw the designation. Paragraph 5 provides: Where its designation has been suspended, restricted, or fully or partially withdrawn, the notified body shall inform the providers concerned within 10 days. Paragraph 6 provides: In the event of the restriction, suspension or withdrawal of a designation, the notifying authority shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the files of the notified body concerned are kept, and to make them available to notifying authorities in other Member States and to market surveillance authorities at their request. Paragraph 9 provides: With the exception of certificates unduly issued, and where a designation has been withdrawn, the certificates shall remain valid for a period of nine months under the following circumstances: (a) the national competent authority of the Member State in which the provider of the high-risk AI system covered by the certificate has its registered place of business has confirmed that there is no risk to health, safety or fundamental rights associated with the high-risk AI systems concerned; and (b) another notified body has confirmed in writing that it will assume immediate responsibility for those AI systems and completes its assessment within 12 months of the withdrawal of the designation.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 36(3), (5), (6) and (9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 37(1) provides: The Commission shall, where necessary, investigate all cases where there are reasons to doubt the competence of a notified body or the continued fulfilment by a notified body of the requirements laid down in Article 31 and of its applicable responsibilities. Paragraph 2 provides: The notifying authority shall provide the Commission, on request, with all relevant information relating to the notification or the maintenance of the competence of the notified body concerned. Paragraph 4 provides: Where the Commission ascertains that a notified body does not meet or no longer meets the requirements for its notification, it shall inform the notifying Member State accordingly and request it to take the necessary corrective measures, including the suspension or withdrawal of the notification if necessary. Where the Member State fails to take the necessary corrective measures, the Commission may, by means of an implementing act, suspend, restrict or withdraw the designation. Article 38(1) provides: The Commission shall ensure that, with regard to high-risk AI systems, appropriate coordination and cooperation between notified bodies active in the conformity assessment procedures pursuant to this Regulation are put in place and properly operated in the form of a sectoral group of notified bodies. Paragraph 2 provides: Each notifying authority shall ensure that the bodies notified by it participate in the work of a group referred to in paragraph 1, directly or through designated representatives. Paragraph 3 provides: The Commission shall provide for the exchange of knowledge and best practices between notifying authorities. Article 39 provides: Conformity assessment bodies established under the law of a third country with which the Union has concluded an agreement may be authorised to carry out the activities of notified bodies under this Regulation, provided that they meet the requirements laid down in Article 31 or they ensure an equivalent level of compliance.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 37(1), (2) and (4); Article 38(1) to (3); Article 39","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Read this Section as the supplier terms of your conformity assessor, because that is exactly what it is. Three points in it go wrong in practice. The first is the independence requirement of Article 31(4) and (5). It prohibits not only the obvious double role but rules out consultancy services in particular. Anyone who has his high-risk file built by the advisory firm that later performs the assessment buys a certificate that can be challenged on that ground. Separate those two purchases at the outset, not halfway through. The second is Article 31(1) read alongside Article 39. The body must be established under the national law of a Member State and have legal personality; a body from a third country comes into the picture only where the Union has concluded an agreement with that country. For a group that places its worldwide certification with a single house, that is a hard limit: the European assessment must sit with a European notified legal person, and the group brand name says nothing about that. The third is Article 33. Subcontracting is allowed, but only with your agreement, and the body retains full responsibility for what the subcontractor does. The provision does not oblige it to tell you of its own motion; it only makes its subsidiaries publicly available. So ask, and record the answer, because without the question the agreement never comes up.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 31(1), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (11)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 32; Article 33(1) to (4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Two provisions in this Section work in your favour and are rarely used. Article 34(2) is the first. It requires the body to avoid unnecessary burdens for providers and to take due account of your size, your sector, your structure and the complexity of the system, in particular in view of minimising administrative burdens and compliance costs for micro- and small enterprises. That is not a policy aspiration but an operational obligation of the body, and it sits alongside Article 31(8), which demands the same proportionality in its procedures. The second sentence of paragraph 2 immediately bounds it: the degree of rigour and the level of protection stand. The practical reading is therefore not that a small provider has to demonstrate less, but that the road there must be proportionate. If you are handed a standard package plainly designed for a different kind of organisation, this is the provision on which you raise it. Article 36 is the second. It holds the scenario that hits a provider hardest and appears in no project plan: your body ceases or loses its designation. Your certificates then remain valid for at most nine months, and only where another notified body has confirmed in writing that it will assume responsibility. You hear about it within ten days, and that is the only deadline in this Section that runs directly to you. The follow-on steps for the certificate itself sit in the object on Article 44; what matters here is that the continuity of your market access depends on a party over which you have no control. So treat the notified body as a supplier with concentration risk, and not as a quality mark.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 34(1) to (3); Article 35(1) and (2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 36(3), (5), (6) and (9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 43(1) and (3); Article 44(2); Article 113, third paragraph, point (b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"First establish whether this Section touches you at all: only where your system goes through a notified body via Annex VII or via the sectoral route of Article 43(3). If it does, check four things in the Commission public list at the moment of choice and annually thereafter: is the body still listed, what identification number does it carry, for which conformity assessment activities and which types of AI systems is it notified, and has its designation been restricted or suspended. Record for each choice that you tested the independence of Article 31(4) and (5), in particular whether the same group previously advised you on the same system. When placing the assignment, ask explicitly which tasks are subcontracted to a subcontractor or a subsidiary, give or withhold your agreement under Article 33(3) in writing, and provide in the contract that any change to it requires your agreement again. Add two clauses: a duty on the body to report any change to its designation, mirroring the ten days of Article 36(5), and a handover clause describing which files you get back within what period if it ceases. Finally, keep a second notified body in view that is notified for your type of system, so that the nine months of Article 36(3) and (9) become a handover rather than a search.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 43(1) and (3); Article 44(2); Article 113, third paragraph, point (b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 36(3), (5), (6) and (9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-28-39-notified-bodies","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Chapter III, Section 4, on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/31","label":"Read Article 31 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy","type":"obligation","slug":"article-4-ai-literacy","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":"2026-07-27T00:00:00.000Z","payload_hash_sha256":"deadc6d9145297548d73103fe797c492b2c4d0e5e79298f7e5b79c0ad7d43b2b","label":"Article 4: AI literacy","summary":"Original duty to take measures for a sufficient level of AI literacy.","topics":["ai-literacy"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-4-measures"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-4-measures-record"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-4-periodic-review"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-4-measures-plan"],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Providers and deployers had to take measures, to their best extent, for a sufficient level of AI literacy, tailored to knowledge, experience, training, context and affected persons.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 4, original text applicable from 2 February 2025","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-4-ai-literacy","label":"Open the human explanation"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":null,"date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices","type":"obligation","slug":"article-5-prohibited-practices","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"674c4b85d1cf177b2ab9256989e18b2d685fdb69388f02f22bcc8cebd4f5faf8","label":"Article 5: prohibited practices","summary":"The prohibition of AI practices carrying unacceptable risk, such as manipulation, social scoring and certain biometric applications.","topics":["prohibited-practices"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-5-screen"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-5-screening-record"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-5-intake-gate"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-5-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-5-listed-practice","operator":"any","description":"Placing on the market, putting into service or using AI falls under one of the practices in Article 5(1), including harmful manipulation or exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring, predicting criminal offences based on profiling, untargeted scraping of facial images, emotion recognition in the workplace or education, biometric categorisation by sensitive characteristics and real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-5-narrow-exceptions","operator":"not","description":"The exceptions are narrow: among others, emotion recognition for medical or safety reasons, and the exhaustively defined law-enforcement situations with authorisation for real-time remote biometric identification in Article 5(2) to (7). The exception must be established and documented in advance."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"The prohibited practices of Article 5 apply since 2 February 2025 and are the only AI Act category enforceable for that entire period. Violations carry the highest fine ceiling in the regulation: up to 35 million euro or 7 percent of worldwide annual turnover.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 5, Article 99(3) and Article 113(a)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"The Digital Omnibus adds a prohibition on AI for child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate synthetic content; the accompanying technical safeguards are required by 2 December 2026.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amendment to Article 5 and transition to 2 December 2026","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"The line often sits in the definitional details: the same technique can be prohibited in the workplace and permitted in another context. Screen per concrete use and context, not per technology, and do so before procurement or go-live.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 5(1)(a)-(h)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"Make the Article 5 screening the first step of every classification and record the outcome per system in the register, including the reasoning why a practice does not fall under the prohibition.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 5 read with Article 6 classification order","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-5-prohibited-practices","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 5 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification","type":"obligation","slug":"article-52-systemic-risk-classification","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"fda72f0c021ed141ad0881c569a2e4d7e59aefdcec7c95a562b9f547352a974e","label":"Article 52: notification of a GPAI model with systemic risk","summary":"The provider of a general-purpose AI model that meets the condition in Article 51(1), point (a), notifies the Commission without delay and in any event within two weeks, with the information needed to demonstrate that the requirement has been met. With that notification the provider may present substantiated arguments that the model exceptionally does not present systemic risks after all.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:ai-office"],"evidence_owner_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":"settled","interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2026-08-02-gpai-enforcement","praxikon:eu:ai-act:change:2027-08-02-legacy-gpai-models-comply"],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:notify-systemic-risk-threshold","praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:request-systemic-risk-reassessment"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:systemic-risk-notification-file"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:systemic-risk-notification-deadline"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-52-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-52-notification-trigger","operator":"all","description":"Applies to the provider of a general-purpose AI model as soon as that model meets the condition in Article 51(1), point (a): high impact capabilities, which under Article 51(2) are presumed where the cumulative amount of computation used for its training, measured in floating point operations, is greater than 10^25. The two-week period runs from the moment that requirement is met or it becomes known that it will be met. The second route to systemic risk, a Commission designation under Article 51(1), point (b), or Article 52(4), is not covered here: Article 52(1) refers only to point (a)."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-52-legacy-models-transitional","operator":"not","description":"For general-purpose AI models placed on the market before 2 August 2025, Article 111(3) provides that the provider shall take the necessary steps to comply with the obligations of this Regulation by 2 August 2027. For those models the governing date is therefore 2 August 2027 and not the two-week period."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 51(1), point (a), classifies a general-purpose AI model as a model with systemic risk where it has high impact capabilities evaluated on the basis of appropriate technical tools and methodologies, including indicators and benchmarks; Article 51(2) provides that a model is presumed to have such capabilities where the cumulative amount of computation used for its training, measured in floating point operations, is greater than 10^25. Article 51(1), point (b), reads in full: based on a decision of the Commission, ex officio or following a qualified alert from the scientific panel, it has capabilities or an impact equivalent to those set out in point (a) having regard to the criteria set out in Annex XIII. The requirement of equivalent capabilities or impact and the anchoring in Annex XIII are therefore part of the norm and not only of the procedure. Article 51(3) provides in addition: the Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 to amend the thresholds listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, as well as to supplement benchmarks and indicators in light of evolving technological developments, such as algorithmic improvements or increased hardware efficiency, when necessary, for these thresholds to reflect the state of the art. The 10^25 threshold above is therefore movable; as long as that act does not exist, the threshold applies as it stands in paragraph 2. See data/ai-act/delegated-acts.json, key praxikon:eu:ai-act:delegated-act:article-51-3-thresholds. Article 52(1) refers only to point (a) and provides that the relevant provider shall notify the Commission without delay and in any event within two weeks after that requirement is met or it becomes known that it will be met, and that the notification shall include the information necessary to demonstrate that the relevant requirement has been met. If the Commission becomes aware of a general-purpose AI model presenting systemic risks of which it has not been notified, it may decide to designate it as a model with systemic risk. Paragraph 2 allows the provider to present, with its notification, sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, exceptionally, although the model meets that requirement, it does not present systemic risks due to its specific characteristics and should therefore not be classified as a general-purpose AI model with systemic risk. Paragraph 3 provides that where the Commission concludes that those arguments are not sufficiently substantiated and the provider was not able to demonstrate that the model does not present systemic risks due to its specific characteristics, it shall reject those arguments and the model shall be considered to be a general-purpose AI model with systemic risk. Paragraph 4 empowers the Commission to designate a model as presenting systemic risks, ex officio or following a qualified alert from the scientific panel pursuant to Article 90(1), point (a), on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex XIII, and empowers it to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 to amend Annex XIII by specifying and updating the criteria set out in that Annex. Paragraph 5 provides that upon a reasoned request of a provider whose model has been designated pursuant to paragraph 4, the Commission shall take the request into account and may decide to reassess whether the model can still be considered to present systemic risks on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex XIII, that such a request shall contain objective, detailed and new reasons that have arisen since the designation decision, that providers may request reassessment at the earliest six months after the designation decision, and that where the Commission decides to maintain the designation a further six months must pass. Paragraph 6 provides that the Commission shall ensure that a list of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk is published and kept up to date, without prejudice to the need to observe and protect intellectual property rights and confidential business information or trade secrets in accordance with Union and national law.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 52(1)-(6) with Article 51(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Recital 111 states that the cumulative amount of computation used for training includes the computation used across the activities and methods that are intended to enhance the capabilities of the model prior to deployment, such as pre-training, synthetic data generation and fine-tuning. Recital 112 states that the provider should notify the AI Office at the latest two weeks after the requirements are met or it becomes known that a model will meet the requirements that lead to the presumption, and that this is especially relevant in relation to the threshold of floating point operations because training takes considerable planning which includes the upfront allocation of compute resources and, therefore, providers are able to know if their model would meet the threshold before the training is completed. The same recital states that in the context of that notification the provider should be able to demonstrate that the model exceptionally does not present systemic risks, that the information allows the AI Office to anticipate the placing on the market of models with systemic risks, and that it is especially important for models planned to be released as open-source. Recital 113 states that the Commission should be empowered to designate a model where it becomes aware that the model meets the requirements which previously had either not been known or of which the provider failed to notify it, and that a system of qualified alerts from the scientific panel should exist in addition to the monitoring activities of the AI Office.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Recitals 111 to 113","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 111(3) provides that providers of general-purpose AI models that have been placed on the market before 2 August 2025 shall take the necessary steps in order to comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation by 2 August 2027.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 111(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"The Commission guidelines of 18 July 2025 (C(2025) 5045 final) state in point (63) that a downstream modifier is considered to be the provider of the modified model where the training compute used for the modification is greater than a third of the training compute of the original model, and in point (64) that where the downstream modifier cannot know and cannot estimate the original value, that threshold is replaced by a third of 10^25 FLOP where the original model is a model with systemic risk and otherwise by a third of 10^23 FLOP. Point (70) states that where a downstream actor modifies a model classified as having systemic risk in such a way that they become the provider of the modified model, the resulting model is presumed to have high-impact capabilities, and point (71) states that the modifier must then comply with the obligations for providers of models with systemic risk and notify the Commission in line with Article 52(1). The guidelines are not binding.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5045 final, 18.7.2025, Section 3.2 points (60) to (67) and Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, points (68) to (71)","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"The Commission enforcement powers for general-purpose AI models and the fine regime of Article 101 have been active since 2 August 2026. Article 101(1) provides that the Commission may impose on providers of general-purpose AI models fines not exceeding 3 percent of their annual total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year or EUR 15 000 000, whichever is higher, where it finds that the provider intentionally or negligently infringed the relevant provisions of the Regulation.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Articles 91-93, 101 and 113","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"This is the only duty in this chapter with a numbered deadline, and two weeks is short. Other duties are also tied to a clock, only without a figure: Article 55(1), point (c), requires serious incidents to be reported to the AI Office without undue delay. The question here is therefore not whether you can notify, but whether you see the threshold being crossed in time. Recital 112 leaves little room to push that back: the legislator expressly assumes that the upfront allocation of compute lets you know before training ends that you will meet the threshold. The remaining edge question is how firm that knowledge is for a run not yet allocated, and it is small next to the duty itself. Four things are missed in practice. The first is the transitional rule: if your model was already on the market before 2 August 2025, Article 111(3) gives you until 2 August 2027, and that is the difference between two weeks and two years. The second is the reach of the trigger: only the threshold route of Article 51(1), point (a), starts this clock. If your model is designated by the Commission under Article 51(1), point (b), or Article 52(4), Article 55 begins without Article 52 asking anything of you. The third is the reversal in the last sentence of paragraph 1: if the Commission becomes aware of a model it was not notified about, it may designate it, and you then hold the conversation from a designation rather than from your own file. Since 2 August 2026 the Article 101 fine regime stands behind that. The fourth is the rebuttal route in paragraph 2: those arguments belong with the notification and not after it, so they must already be ready at the moment you notify. Once designated, only paragraph 5 remains, and that route is slow: six months after the decision at the earliest, and only with objective, detailed and new reasons that have arisen since it. The text names the Commission as addressee; recital 112 and Article 55(1), point (c), name the AI Office, which performs this task within the Commission. For an organisation that merely uses an external model this article does not bite: it addresses the provider of the model. That does not put further development out of reach: under point (71) of guidelines C(2025) 5045 final, a party that becomes the provider of a systemic-risk model through a modification must notify the Commission in line with Article 52(1).","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 52(1)-(6) with Article 51(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Recitals 111 to 113","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 111(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5045 final, 18.7.2025, Section 3.2 points (60) to (67) and Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, points (68) to (71)","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"First establish whether you are the provider of the model and not merely a user, and whether your model was already on the market before 2 August 2025, because the date in Article 111(3) then applies instead of the two-week period. If you are the provider of a new model, record the planned and the consumed training compute per training run, including pre-training, synthetic data generation and fine-tuning, because recital 111 counts all three. Agree who notifies once the threshold comes into view, so the two-week period is not spent finding an owner, and tie that to the moment compute is allocated rather than to the end of the run. Keep the reasoning with which you would argue that the model does not present systemic risks ready before you notify, because it belongs with the notification. If you have already been designated under paragraph 4, build deliberately towards objective, detailed and new reasons that have arisen since the designation decision, because only those get you to a reassessment after six months. Retain the notification, the substantiation sent with it, any reassessment request and the Commission response as a living file per model version.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 52(1)-(6) with Article 51(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Recitals 111 to 113","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 111(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-52-systemic-risk-classification","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 52 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","label":"Guidelines C(2025) 5045 final on the scope of the GPAI obligations"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-53-gpai","type":"obligation","slug":"article-53-gpai","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"55f22a1c21f936ec956fc61f7db4f29defb4524294046799c13af57745cd8b36","label":"Article 53: GPAI model providers","summary":"Documentation, information, copyright and transparency duties for providers of general-purpose AI models.","topics":["gpai"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:gpai-document"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:gpai-compliance-file"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:gpai-documentation-change-control"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:gpai-guide"],"conditions":[{"id":"gpai-union-market","operator":"all","description":"The party is a provider of a GPAI model placed on the Union market."},{"id":"gpai-market-date-transition","operator":"any","description":"For models placed on the market from 2 August 2025, the duties apply from that time. Models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 must comply by 2 August 2027."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"gpai-open-source-limited-exception","operator":"not","description":"The open-source exception is limited and retains, among other things, the copyright policy and public training-content summary. Additional duties apply to models with systemic risk."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 53 applies since 2 August 2025 to new GPAI models. Providers maintain technical documentation, provide information to downstream providers, operate a Union copyright policy and publish a sufficiently detailed summary of training content.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 53(1), Annex XI and Annex XII","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Providers of GPAI models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 must comply with the applicable obligations by 2 August 2027.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 113(3)(b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"An organisation merely using an external GPAI model does not thereby automatically become a GPAI model provider. First determine its role in the value chain.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines","source_locator":"Scope and provider qualification guidance","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"Record model versions, role qualification, documentation owners, downstream information, copyright policy and training summary in one change-controlled file.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 53 and Annexes XI-XII","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-53-gpai","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","label":"Guidelines for GPAI model providers"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative","type":"obligation","slug":"article-54-gpai-authorised-representative","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"0c470c29e8f0c2ad222dc0517b6a9437615474bfc6429e9c37b90eb35572d5c5","label":"Article 54: authorised representative of a provider of a GPAI model","summary":"A provider established in a third country appoints, by written mandate, an authorised representative established in the Union before placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market. The representative performs the tasks the mandate assigns to it and provides a copy of that mandate to the AI Office upon request. The mandate empowers it at least to verify the documentation, keep a copy available for ten years, provide information and cooperate, and appoints it as the point of contact in addition to or instead of the provider.","topics":["gpai","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:ai-office"],"evidence_owner_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai","praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:appoint-gpai-authorised-representative"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:gpai-representative-mandate-file"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:gpai-mandate-review"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-54-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-54-scope","operator":"all","description":"Applies where the model qualifies as a general-purpose AI model within the meaning of Article 3(63), its provider is established in a third country, and that model is placed on the Union market. The appointment is made by written mandate within the meaning of Article 3(5), which is not only given but also accepted, and it is made before the model is placed on the market. The moment at which the latter occurs is fixed less sharply for a model than for a system; see the editorial interpretation."},{"id":"article-54-market-date-transition","operator":"any","description":"For models placed on the market from 2 August 2025, the appointment duty applies from that moment. Providers of models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 shall, under Article 111(3), take the necessary steps to comply with the obligations of the Regulation by 2 August 2027."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-54-open-source-exception","operator":"not","description":"Paragraph 6 excludes the obligation for providers of AI models released under a free and open-source licence that allows access, usage, modification and distribution, and whose parameters, including the weights, the information on the model architecture and the information on model usage, are made publicly available. That exception falls away as soon as the model presents a systemic risk. Whether a given release qualifies is a factual test that has not been settled anywhere; we read it narrowly, so a partially public release does not qualify."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 1 provides that, prior to placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market, providers established in third countries shall, by written mandate, appoint an authorised representative which is established in the Union. Paragraph 2 provides that the provider shall enable its authorised representative to perform the tasks specified in the mandate received from the provider. Paragraph 3 provides that the authorised representative shall perform the tasks specified in the mandate received from the provider, that it shall provide a copy of the mandate to the AI Office upon request in one of the official languages of the institutions of the Union, and that for the purposes of the Regulation the mandate shall empower the authorised representative to carry out the following tasks: (a) verify that the technical documentation specified in Annex XI has been drawn up and all obligations referred to in Article 53 and, where applicable, Article 55 have been fulfilled by the provider; (b) keep a copy of the technical documentation specified in Annex XI at the disposal of the AI Office and national competent authorities, for a period of 10 years after the general-purpose AI model has been placed on the market, and the contact details of the provider that appointed the authorised representative; (c) provide the AI Office, upon a reasoned request, with all the information and documentation, including that referred to in point (b), necessary to demonstrate compliance with the obligations in that Chapter; (d) cooperate with the AI Office and competent authorities, upon a reasoned request, in any action they take in relation to the general-purpose AI model, including when the model is integrated into AI systems placed on the market or put into service in the Union. Paragraph 4 provides that the mandate shall empower the authorised representative to be addressed, in addition to or instead of the provider, by the AI Office or the competent authorities, on all issues related to ensuring compliance with the Regulation. Paragraph 5 provides that the authorised representative shall terminate the mandate if it considers or has reason to consider the provider to be acting contrary to its obligations pursuant to the Regulation, and that in such a case it shall also immediately inform the AI Office about the termination of the mandate and the reasons therefor. Paragraph 6 provides that the obligation set out in that Article shall not apply to providers of general-purpose AI models that are released under a free and open-source licence that allows for the access, usage, modification, and distribution of the model, and whose parameters, including the weights, the information on the model architecture, and the information on model usage, are made publicly available, unless the general-purpose AI models present systemic risks.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 54(1)-(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 3(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 113(3)(b) provides that Chapter III Section 4, Chapter V, Chapter VII and Chapter XII and Article 78 shall apply from 2 August 2025, with the exception of Article 101. Article 54 sits in Chapter V and therefore applies from 2 August 2025.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 113(3)(b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 101(1) provides that the Commission may impose on providers of general-purpose AI models fines not exceeding 3 percent of their annual total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year or EUR 15 000 000, whichever is higher. Article 101 is excluded by Article 113(3)(b) from the earlier application of Chapter XII and has therefore applied since 2 August 2026. The obligation in Article 54 has thus applied since 2 August 2025, while the Commission fining power behind it exists only since 2 August 2026.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 101(1)-(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 113(3)(b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Providers of general-purpose AI models that have been placed on the market before 2 August 2025 shall take the necessary steps in order to comply with the obligations laid down in the Regulation by 2 August 2027.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 111(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"This article touches two parties that rarely see themselves that way. The first is the model provider outside the Union that assumes nothing is required until a European customer asks: paragraph 1 places the appointment before the placing on the market, so the representative should exist before the first user in the Union can access the model. The second is the European party that accepts the mandate. It is not stepping into a mailbox role, but note how paragraph 3 is built: the first sentence obliges it to perform the tasks the mandate assigns to it, and only then does the article list what the mandate empowers it to do. Points (a) to (d) are therefore mandate content and empowerment, and its duty runs through them. That is where this article leaves its sharpest question open: is a representative that accepts a mandate omitting task (a) or (b) itself in breach, or does the failure rest entirely with the provider that drew up the mandate. We read paragraph 3 as making the list mandatory minimum content, so that a mandate lacking it does not satisfy the article, which leaves the provider answerable under paragraph 1 and the representative answerable for what it did accept. A defensible alternative reading is that a representative signing without those powers takes on a task it cannot discharge and thereby falls short itself. So do not assume the ten year retention in point (b) rests on you automatically, or automatically does not; write it out. Paragraph 5 closes this off in a way that is often missed: a representative that considers, or has reason to consider, that the provider is breaching its obligations terminates the mandate and immediately informs the AI Office. That is a duty rather than a power, and it calls for access to the documentation agreed in advance and for a moment at which that access is tested.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 54(1)-(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Three things about the timeline and the scope. First, the difference between duty and enforcement: the duty has applied since 2 August 2025, but Article 101 is excluded from the earlier application, so the Commission can only fine since 2 August 2026. For a provider outside the Union discovering today that it has no representative, that means: in breach for well over a year, and now also exposed to a fine. Second, the relationship with Article 22. That article carries the same figure for high-risk AI systems, starting on 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028; Article 54 is the separate route for general-purpose AI models and has applied since 2 August 2025. Anyone looking up the role of authorised representative finds both and needs to know which route applies. Third, the trigger in paragraph 1. The Regulation fixes the moment of placing on the market less sharply for a model than for a system, and for a model made available only through an interface from a third country there is no case law. We read the duty as starting once the model is made available to users in the Union in the course of a commercial activity, because paragraph 1 attaches to placing on the market and not to establishment in the Union. A defensible alternative reading is that making a model available through an interface is not placing the model itself on the market, so that the duty only arises on an actual supply of the model.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 54(1)-(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 113(3)(b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point (40)(b) and (c), replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c) and adding point (d)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"First establish whether you are the provider of the model or only a user, because only the provider appoints. If you are established outside the Union, put the mandate in writing before the model becomes available here, and write the four tasks in paragraph 3 into it expressly, together with the access to the Annex XI documentation and the point of contact under paragraph 4. If your model was already on the market before 2 August 2025, work to 2 August 2027 rather than to today. If you are only now discovering that there is no representative, assume the duty has run since 2 August 2025 and that the Commission has been able to fine since 2 August 2026; remedy first and record when you did. If you accept a mandate, agree in advance how you carry out the verification in paragraph 3(a), who holds the copy for ten years, and at what moment you test whether termination under paragraph 5 is called for.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 54(1)-(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 101(1)-(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-54-gpai-authorised-representative","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 54 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/54","label":"Read Article 54 in the AI Act Explorer"},{"relation":"related","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/53","label":"Article 53: the duties the representative verifies"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","label":"Guidelines for GPAI model providers"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk","type":"obligation","slug":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"112ee62609020ed4f49362f4910ee0bdb9155a472914dad7870a887141a5f589","label":"Article 55: GPAI models with systemic risk","summary":"Additional duties for the most capable general-purpose AI models, on top of Article 53.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:ai-office"],"evidence_owner_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-act"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-record"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-control"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-scope","operator":"all","description":"The GPAI model has high-impact capabilities, presumed above 10^25 FLOPs of cumulative training compute, or is designated by the Commission."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-exception","operator":"not","description":"The GPAI Code of Practice can, following the adequacy assessment, serve as a means to demonstrate compliance."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Article 55 obliges providers of GPAI models with systemic risk to perform model evaluations including adversarial testing, assess and mitigate systemic risks at Union level, track and report serious incidents, and ensure adequate cybersecurity of model and infrastructure. The duties apply since 2 August 2025; AI Office enforcement is active since 2 August 2026.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 55(1)-(2) with Article 51 and Article 52","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"The 10^25 FLOPs threshold is a presumption, not a shield: the Commission can also designate models on capabilities, and fine-tuning on top of an existing model can in some circumstances trigger a qualification of its own.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 55(1)-(2) with Article 51 and Article 52","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"Model providers near the threshold: set up compute monitoring now and join the Code of Practice to carry the burden of proof.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 55(1)-(2) with Article 51 and Article 52","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-55-gpai-systemic-risk","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 55 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice","type":"obligation","slug":"article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice","version":"1.0.1","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"74463155839605a06ea0b915b0a01194058e44630920b6d2724d2852514e01ac","label":"Article 56: codes of practice for general-purpose AI models","summary":"The AI Office encourages and facilitates the drawing up of codes of practice at Union level, and the AI Office and the Board see to it that those codes cover at least the obligations in Articles 53 and 55. Providers of general-purpose AI models and national competent authorities may be invited to participate in the drawing up; civil society organisations, industry, academia and other stakeholders may support the process. Until 27 July 2026 the Commission could approve a code of practice by implementing act and give it general validity within the Union; Article 1, point (21), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 replaced paragraph 6 and removed that power. Since then the Commission assesses whether the codes cover the obligations of Articles 53 and 55 and publishes that assessment. The codes were to be ready by 2 May 2025 at the latest; if no code existed by 2 August 2025, or if the AI Office deems one inadequate, the Commission may lay down common rules by implementing acts for the implementation of Articles 53 and 55. For you this is therefore not a separate duty but a route: a code is a voluntary instrument with which you can demonstrate compliance.","topics":["governance","gpai","gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"oversight_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:ai-office"],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":"out_of_scope","interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:decide-and-record-gpai-code-adherence"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-56-code-adherence-decision-record"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-56-code-commitment-review"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-56-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-56-scope-gpai-provider","operator":"any","description":"Arises for the provider of a general-purpose AI model: it may be invited under paragraph 3 to participate in the drawing up of a code of practice, and under paragraph 7 to adhere to a code of practice."},{"id":"article-56-scope-value-chain","operator":"any","description":"Arises for other stakeholders: paragraph 3 names civil society organisations, industry, academia and other relevant stakeholders, such as downstream providers and independent experts, that may support the process."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-56-limited-adherence-without-systemic-risk","operator":"not","description":"Paragraph 7 provides that for providers of general-purpose AI models not presenting systemic risks this adherence may be limited to the obligations provided for in Article 53, unless they declare explicitly their interest to join the full code. A provider without a systemic-risk model therefore does not have to sign up to the systemic-risk part in order to rely on the code."},{"id":"article-56-voluntary-instrument","operator":"not","description":"Article 56 does not impose a separate obligation on the provider. Paragraphs 3 and 7 speak of inviting, not of requiring, and the obligations themselves remain those of Articles 53 and 55. Not signing is therefore not an infringement of Article 56."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 1 provides that the AI Office shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of practice at Union level in order to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account international approaches. Paragraph 2 provides that the AI Office and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of practice cover at least the obligations provided for in Articles 53 and 55, including the following issues: (a) the means to ensure that the information referred to in Article 53(1), points (a) and (b), is kept up to date in light of market and technological developments; (b) the adequate level of detail for the summary about the content used for training; (c) the identification of the type and nature of the systemic risks at Union level, including their sources, where appropriate; (d) the measures, procedures and modalities for the assessment and management of the systemic risks at Union level, including the documentation thereof, which shall be proportionate to the risks, take into consideration their severity and probability and take into account the specific challenges of tackling those risks in light of the possible ways in which such risks may emerge and materialise along the AI value chain. Paragraph 3 provides that the AI Office may invite all providers of general-purpose AI models, as well as relevant national competent authorities, to participate in the drawing-up of codes of practice. Civil society organisations, industry, academia and other relevant stakeholders, such as downstream providers and independent experts, may support the process.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 56(1)-(9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 4 provides that the AI Office and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of practice clearly set out their specific objectives and contain commitments or measures, including key performance indicators as appropriate, to ensure the achievement of those objectives, and that they take due account of the needs and interests of all interested parties, including affected persons, at Union level. Paragraph 5 provides that the AI Office shall aim to ensure that participants to the codes of practice report regularly to the AI Office on the implementation of the commitments and the measures taken and their outcomes, including as measured against the key performance indicators as appropriate. Key performance indicators and reporting commitments shall reflect differences in size and capacity between various participants. Paragraph 6, as replaced by Article 1, point (21), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, provides that the Commission and the Board shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of the objectives of the codes of practice by the participants and their contribution to the proper application of this Regulation. The Commission, taking utmost account of the opinion of the Board, shall assess whether the codes of practice cover the obligations provided for in Articles 53 and 55, and shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of their objectives. The Commission shall publish its assessment of the adequacy of the codes of practice. The power to approve a code of practice by implementing act and give it general validity within the Union, which sat in the second subparagraph of paragraph 6 until 27 July 2026, lapsed with that replacement. Paragraph 7 provides that the AI Office may invite all providers of general-purpose AI models to adhere to the codes of practice. For providers of general-purpose AI models not presenting systemic risks this adherence may be limited to the obligations provided for in Article 53, unless they declare explicitly their interest to join the full code.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 56(1)-(9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point (21), replacing Article 56(6)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 8 provides that the AI Office shall, as appropriate, also encourage and facilitate the review and adaptation of the codes of practice, in particular in light of emerging standards. The AI Office shall assist in the assessment of available standards. Paragraph 9 provides that codes of practice shall be ready at the latest by 2 May 2025. The AI Office shall take the necessary steps, including inviting providers pursuant to paragraph 7. The second subparagraph of paragraph 9 provides that if, by 2 August 2025, a code of practice cannot be finalised, or if the AI Office deems it is not adequate following its assessment under paragraph 6 of this Article, the Commission may provide, by means of implementing acts, common rules for the implementation of the obligations provided for in Articles 53 and 55, including the issues set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 98(2).","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 56(1)-(9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"A code of practice is a voluntary instrument, and that word does all the work here. Signing creates no new obligation: your obligations remain those of Articles 53 and 55, and Article 56 changes nothing about them. Not signing is not an infringement either, because paragraphs 3 and 7 speak of inviting and not of requiring. What does shift is the burden of proof. A provider adhering to a code can point to a shared elaboration, assessed by the AI Office and the Board, when a regulator asks how it keeps its documentation up to date, how detailed its summary about the training content is, or how it assesses and manages systemic risk. A provider that does not sign has to write that elaboration itself and defend it itself, up to and including the question why its own approach is at least as good. That is not a legal difference in the norm, but it is a large difference in what is on the table when something is asked. Two things that are often conflated here. First: paragraph 7 allows a provider without a systemic-risk model to limit itself to the obligations in Article 53, unless it explicitly declares its interest in the full code. Partial participation is therefore an expressly foreseen choice and not half-heartedness. Second: paragraph 9 puts a stick behind the door that does not rest on you but does reach you. If no code comes about, or if the AI Office deems it inadequate, the Commission may lay down common rules by implementing acts for the implementation of Articles 53 and 55. Those rules, unlike a code, are not voluntary.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 56(1)-(9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Precision is in order about the state of play, because this is where the market overstates the most. It is established that the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice was published on 10 July 2025; that code is archived in this repository as three chapter PDF files, on transparency, copyright and safety and security, and it is present as a source record in this knowledge base. Whether an approving implementing act followed was not established for the period up to 27 July 2026, and after that date it is no longer the right question: paragraph 6 no longer carries that power. Since then the question is whether the Commission has published its assessment of adequacy, and it has: on 1 August 2025 the Commission and the AI Board published their assessment that the code is an adequate voluntary tool for providers of general-purpose AI models to demonstrate compliance. That is not an approval by implementing act, so do not read anywhere that the code has been approved or has general validity within the Union. That distinction is not a formality: a published code is a text you can voluntarily adhere to, a code approved by implementing act is on top of that an instrument with general validity in the Union. Anyone mistaking the first for the second overestimates what a signature buys and underestimates what they still have to record themselves. The content of the three chapters was also not read in this build, so nothing in this object says anything about what exactly is in them. In practice that means the following. Check the approval status yourself and by date before you rely on the code in a conversation with a regulator or a customer, and record which version of the code and which chapter your adherence relates to. A code may be reviewed and adapted under paragraph 8, in particular in light of emerging standards, so a reliance on the code without a version reference ages on its own.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 56(1)-(9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:gpai-code-of-practice","source_locator":"Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI, 10 July 2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","eli":null},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-opinion-gpai-code","source_locator":"Commission opinion and AI Board assessment, published on 1 August 2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-opinion-assessment-general-purpose-ai-code-practice","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"Treat the question whether you adhere to a code of practice as a decision that is taken and recorded, not as something that happens by itself. Record per model: do you adhere to a code, to which version and to which chapter, and if not, which elaboration of your own you apply instead for the issues named in paragraph 2, namely keeping the information in Article 53(1), points (a) and (b), up to date, the level of detail of the summary about the training content, and, where you offer a systemic-risk model, the identification and management of systemic risk. Decide explicitly whether under paragraph 7 the obligations in Article 53 are enough for you or whether you join the full code, and note that choice with a date and an authorised signatory. Before you rely on a code externally, check whether the Commission has published its assessment of adequacy under the amended paragraph 6, and claim no more than you can point at that moment. Do not ask for an approving implementing act: that power has not existed since 27 July 2026, and asking for it is asking for a decision nobody can take any more. Finally, put a review moment in your own calendar: paragraph 8 provides for review and adaptation of codes in light of emerging standards, and paragraph 9 allows the Commission to lay down common rules where a code fails to appear or is deemed inadequate, and both change what you are relying on without anyone calling you.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 56(1)-(9)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:gpai-code-of-practice","source_locator":"Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI, 10 July 2025","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","eli":null}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 56 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/56","label":"Read Article 56 in the AI Act Explorer"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","label":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice at the European Commission"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-04-25T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-78-confidentiality","legacy_id":"raip:obligation:article-78-confidentiality","type":"obligation","slug":"article-78-confidentiality","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"fe3d73fa9cc874bc4fc12b0f664ff4e60e68de553dfc7bf0c64c38bc1350c8e3","label":"Article 78: confidentiality of what you submit to an authority","summary":"The Commission, the market surveillance authorities, the notified bodies and everyone involved in the application of the Regulation respect the confidentiality of what they obtain in carrying out their tasks, and in doing so expressly protect the intellectual property rights, the confidential business information and the trade secrets of a natural or legal person, including source code. They may request only data that is strictly necessary, must secure it, and must delete it as soon as it is no longer needed. For you this is therefore not a duty but a protection, with a limit: the exception in Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 remains, and the provision leaves the exchange of information and the dissemination of warnings between authorities untouched.","topics":["enforcement","governance"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"oversight_actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:market-surveillance-authority"],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":"out_of_scope","interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":[],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:action:mark-confidential-material-on-submission"],"evidence_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:evidence:article-78-submission-register"],"control_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:control:article-78-disclosure-review"],"template_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-78-legal-text"],"conditions":[{"id":"article-78-scope","operator":"all","description":"Applies to all information and data obtained by the Commission, the market surveillance authorities, the notified bodies and any other natural or legal person involved in the application of this Regulation in carrying out their tasks and activities. The protection operates in accordance with Union or national law and not on its own."},{"id":"article-78-strict-necessity","operator":"all","description":"Paragraph 2 limits what an authority may request: only data that is strictly necessary for the assessment of the risk posed by AI systems and for the exercise of its powers in accordance with this Regulation and with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. Two follow-on duties attach to that: adequate and effective cybersecurity measures, and deletion as soon as the data is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was obtained."}],"exceptions":[{"id":"article-78-trade-secrets-directive-carve-out","operator":"not","description":"The protection of intellectual property, confidential business information and trade secrets, including source code, applies except in the cases referred to in Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2016/943. Point (a) of paragraph 1 says so in as many words."},{"id":"article-78-information-exchange-unaffected","operator":"not","description":"Paragraph 4 provides that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 do not affect the rights or obligations of the Commission, the Member States and their relevant authorities, or those of notified bodies, with regard to the exchange of information and the dissemination of warnings, including in the context of cross-border cooperation, nor the obligations of the parties concerned to provide information under criminal law of the Member States. Confidentiality under this article is therefore not a duty of silence between authorities."}],"statements":[{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 1 provides that the Commission, market surveillance authorities and notified bodies and any other natural or legal person involved in the application of this Regulation shall, in accordance with Union or national law, respect the confidentiality of information and data obtained in carrying out their tasks and activities in such a manner as to protect, in particular: (a) the intellectual property rights and confidential business information or trade secrets of a natural or legal person, including source code, except in the cases referred to in Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2016/943; (b) the effective implementation of this Regulation, in particular for the purposes of inspections, investigations or audits; (c) public and national security interests; (d) the conduct of criminal or administrative proceedings; (e) information classified pursuant to Union or national law. Paragraph 2 provides that the authorities involved in the application of this Regulation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall request only data that is strictly necessary for the assessment of the risk posed by AI systems and for the exercise of their powers in accordance with this Regulation and with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, that they shall put in place adequate and effective cybersecurity measures to protect the security and confidentiality of the information and data obtained, and that they shall delete the data collected as soon as it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was obtained, in accordance with applicable Union or national law.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 78(1)-(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 3 provides that, without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 2, information exchanged on a confidential basis between the national competent authorities or between national competent authorities and the Commission shall not be disclosed without prior consultation of the originating national competent authority and the deployer when high-risk AI systems referred to in point 1, 6 or 7 of Annex III are used by law enforcement, border control, immigration or asylum authorities and when such disclosure would jeopardise public and national security interests. This exchange of information shall not cover sensitive operational data in relation to the activities of law enforcement, border control, immigration or asylum authorities. The second subparagraph of paragraph 3 provides that when the law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities are providers of high-risk AI systems referred to in point 1, 6 or 7 of Annex III, the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV shall remain within the premises of those authorities, that those authorities shall ensure that the market surveillance authorities referred to in Article 74(8) and (9), as applicable, can, upon request, immediately access the documentation or obtain a copy thereof, and that only staff of the market surveillance authority holding the appropriate level of security clearance shall be allowed to access that documentation or any copy thereof.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 78(1)-(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"official_fact","text":"Paragraph 4 provides that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not affect the rights or obligations of the Commission, Member States and their relevant authorities, as well as those of notified bodies, with regard to the exchange of information and the dissemination of warnings, including in the context of cross-border cooperation, nor shall they affect the obligations of the parties concerned to provide information under criminal law of the Member States. Paragraph 5 provides that the Commission and Member States may exchange, where necessary and in accordance with relevant provisions of international and trade agreements, confidential information with regulatory authorities of third countries with which they have concluded bilateral or multilateral confidentiality arrangements guaranteeing an adequate level of confidentiality.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 78(1)-(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"Read this article as the answer to the question your supplier asks and that you ask yourself as soon as you have to hand something over. The protection is real and it names source code expressly, which is unusually explicit in Union law. But it is a duty of the recipient and not a right of refusal for the party submitting. Article 21(1) requires the provider, upon a reasoned request, to give all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate conformity; Article 78 does not say you may withhold anything, it says what the recipient must do afterwards. Anyone who inverts that and refuses on grounds of confidentiality is legally empty-handed. Two limits on top, because they get missed in practice. The first is Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2016/943: that exception sits verbatim in point (a) and it covers, among other things, exercising the right to freedom of expression and information and revealing misconduct in the general public interest. The second is paragraph 4: between authorities, and when disseminating warnings, confidentiality does not operate as a lock. Your file can therefore reach another Member State without that being a breach. What does work in your favour is paragraph 2. That is a strict necessity test on the request itself, with a retention limit attached: deletion as soon as the data is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was obtained. That is a question you can put to an authority and whose answer you can record.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 78(1)-(5)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","text":"There is an asymmetry in this article that is rarely noticed. Paragraph 3 gives one set of parties a heavy extra protection: where a high-risk system from point 1, 6 or 7 of Annex III is used by a law enforcement, border control, immigration or asylum authority, information exchanged on a confidential basis may not be disclosed without prior consultation of the originating authority and the deployer, and the technical documentation stays physically within the premises of that authority where it is itself the provider. For a commercial provider in exactly the same Annex III areas that arrangement does not apply. The practical conclusion is not that one is better protected than the other, but that you need to know which side you are on: if you supply such an authority, your documentation travels a different path from your own archive, and you settle that path in the contract rather than after the fact. Note also what this article does not govern. It says nothing about the public availability of the EU database in Article 71, whose public part is meant to be found, and nothing about what a deployer must explain to an affected person under Article 86. Confidentiality towards a regulator and transparency towards a citizen are two separate tracks in this Regulation, and it is a mistake to try to close one with the other.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 21(1); Article 74(8) and (9); Article 113, second paragraph","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}},{"kind":"recommended_action","text":"Mark on every submission which part you regard as confidential business information, trade secret or source code, and why, and keep a register of what you handed to whom on what date. That register is your only starting point if you later want to know whether something left the circle. When asked for additional data, ask about the necessity within the meaning of paragraph 2 and about the purpose for which the data is obtained, and record the answer; that is not a refusal and it is the only way to be able to invoke the retention limit of paragraph 2 later. Put in supplier contracts who receives a request from an authority, who decides what is handed over, and that the other party is informed within an agreed period. If you supply a law enforcement, border control, immigration or asylum authority, record where the technical documentation stays physically and who has access to it. Finally, do not assume that confidentiality releases you from Article 21: the duty to deliver on request stands apart from the recipient’s duty to handle what is delivered with care.","citations":[{"source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 21(1); Article 74(8) and (9); Article 113, second paragraph","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"editorial"}}],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-78-confidentiality","label":"Open the human explanation"},{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 78 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/78","label":"Read Article 78 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"source_verified","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:annex-iii-classifier","legacy_id":"raip:template:annex-iii-classifier","type":"template","slug":"annex-iii-classifier","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"dae4e0cfcd90846c10fa8ab1777f21308410df28876ab6df9e201a05ea6f9155","label":"Annex III classification route","summary":"Public classifier for the high-risk use cases in Annex III.","topics":["high-risk","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:annex-iii-high-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/annex-iii","label":"Open the eight public classification routes"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-10-data-governance-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-10-data-governance-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-10-data-governance-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"c4525b47886b0b8562a281f37b58eb8c859ae33c2f6ab6398220d1bf7b9936d3","label":"Full text of Article 10","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-10-data-governance"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/10","label":"Read Article 10 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-11-technical-documentation-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-11-technical-documentation-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-11-technical-documentation-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"1b4a8665dde718cd9f5128ee43bae41a35bb1e93957f80397aea2c0d6ce9f675","label":"Full text of Article 11","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-11-technical-documentation"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/11","label":"Read Article 11 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-12-logging-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-12-logging-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-12-logging-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"0b388455f428f11dfb5468f87917aefff00ef5a2a79a9e13bafe13ef4285badf","label":"Full text of Article 12","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-12-logging"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/12","label":"Read Article 12 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-13-instructions-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-13-instructions-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-13-instructions-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"417dfd58e9c213b4628e05547f8ba669a5b1a1055dcc9d8168c4800c87ea4620","label":"Full text of Article 13","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-13-instructions"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/13","label":"Read Article 13 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-14-human-oversight-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-14-human-oversight-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-14-human-oversight-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"503e54076c77a49f21f87deeb88184e6553063cb2cab5f172eb9cbea96c9c4b1","label":"Full text of Article 14","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-14-human-oversight"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/14","label":"Read Article 14 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-15-accuracy-robustness-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-15-accuracy-robustness-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-15-accuracy-robustness-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"79ee3412f8d237f653302e9cf55ba8b88316d39bb0ad16e64b2e9e990e55f56c","label":"Full text of Article 15","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-15-accuracy-robustness"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/15","label":"Read Article 15 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-16-provider-obligations-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-16-provider-obligations-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-16-provider-obligations-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"838d057e1bea1f6bdaa626ad24caaca47eb7c7c9e7f2b79df5f2c2ed388b0cc1","label":"Full text of Article 16","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-16-provider-obligations"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/16","label":"Read Article 16 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-17-quality-management-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-17-quality-management-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-17-quality-management-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"2ae55f99f1425e8cb858449719be7600a688e08cbc12fdb3d587349e6ee5fdde","label":"Full text of Article 17","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-17-quality-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/17","label":"Read Article 17 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-23-importer-obligations-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-23-importer-obligations-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-23-importer-obligations-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a496206177b88595c0276aede65fe7f0033c3c4c9816f5f7a1f2ac1dbdba380b","label":"Full text of Article 23","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["template","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:importer"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-23-importer-obligations"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/23","label":"Read Article 23 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-24-distributor-obligations-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-24-distributor-obligations-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-24-distributor-obligations-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"db0d18d585624e430c992f65eb6f1af0b9bb5164e61ac183727a4af1c8a34d13","label":"Full text of Article 24","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["template","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:distributor"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-24-distributor-obligations"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/24","label":"Read Article 24 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-26-deployer-obligations-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-26-deployer-obligations-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-26-deployer-obligations-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"d5675ff568eed50bfad51b263032a2053826fa1ea99c99abe9bb592f92be72c2","label":"Full text of Article 26","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-26-deployer-obligations"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/26","label":"Read Article 26 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-28-39-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-28-39-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-28-39-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"2edf393dfa2fe74bf11228eb660a7444be2bfb03743c383af94184e0cb25b7e1","label":"Full text of Articles 28 to 39","summary":"The full legal text of Chapter III, Section 4, in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["conformity","governance","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Chapter III, Section 4, on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/31","label":"Read Article 31 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-4-measures-plan","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-4-measures-plan","type":"template","slug":"article-4-measures-plan","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"857b4bd32f2868a918b0191bcbd624dcb65accca8e079afc2b3bbe0b3841a101","label":"AI literacy measures plan","summary":"Public route for structuring measures by role and context.","topics":["ai-literacy","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/templates/article-4-evidence-dossier-checklist","label":"Open public evidence checklist"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-5-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-5-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-5-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"035492482a5c481e790573a6949745f1da8b49792bfb28bb377c4bba7c92d48f","label":"Full text of Article 5","summary":"The full legal text of the prohibited practices with all categories and exceptions, in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["prohibited-practices","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/5","label":"Read Article 5 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-50-checklist","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-50-checklist","type":"template","slug":"article-50-checklist","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"165eaabca3372655df0955fa11ee94e3125d67b5adfa1a7f26157df5f031b26f","label":"Article 50 checklist","summary":"Public decision route for the distinct transparency obligations.","topics":["template","transparency"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/templates/ai-transparency-notice","label":"Open public transparency template"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-52-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-52-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-52-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"0d6085f7e5a1c6077dfe6516ca71e7c72924b01b8c61674bdc18d18b2d740bcf","label":"Full text of Article 52","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 52 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-54-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-54-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-54-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"20ea620fe652fa973a8cdfb0a2f0be479c107896b90803a79ebe529a3eb5d896","label":"Full text of Article 54","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["gpai","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:authorised-representative","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 54 on EUR-Lex"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-10T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-55-gpai-systemic-risk-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a78c5debbb73f96dc47f83d6dfb91f50e9ed69d412126deaa23afb74bbe8e31e","label":"Full text of Article 55","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["gpai-systemic-risk","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/55","label":"Read Article 55 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-56-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-56-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-56-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a88041020566d088c724fed811dea3f8f4b46e002abf1ea84943798a7d3c12b1","label":"Full text of Article 56","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["governance","gpai","gpai-systemic-risk","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 56 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/56","label":"Read Article 56 in the AI Act Explorer"},{"relation":"related","href":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","label":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice at the European Commission"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-57-regulatory-sandboxes-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-57-regulatory-sandboxes-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-57-regulatory-sandboxes-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a450df3b7e1b9407df652959c71ba0c2406714c0fe9b00512d3ffa3953d78b14","label":"Full text of Article 57","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["innovation","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-57-regulatory-sandboxes"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/57","label":"Read Article 57 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-60-real-world-testing-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-60-real-world-testing-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-60-real-world-testing-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"3cb72c16ed3875f5a3a60a7863584dc3d266458e6321dfd3147f848e8117e94d","label":"Full text of Article 60","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["innovation","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-60-real-world-testing"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/60","label":"Read Article 60 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-72-post-market-monitoring-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-72-post-market-monitoring-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-72-post-market-monitoring-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"1efe1f458525f1f6e47913d9ae599436bbc52f3279073f80478f74c1fe6e7880","label":"Full text of Article 72","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["post-market","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-72-post-market-monitoring"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/72","label":"Read Article 72 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-73-incident-reporting-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-73-incident-reporting-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-73-incident-reporting-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"f22615858521d40a4f31851f27377f587e2f8cbdccb351ee2e6756d4d23706be","label":"Full text of Article 73","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["post-market","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/73","label":"Read Article 73 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-78-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-78-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-78-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2025-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"38acb4e27d0f5910d94c017f7ac296770ef0755c26c294021c73fcb24c6b0a4b","label":"Full text of Article 78","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["enforcement","governance","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-78-confidentiality"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"official_source","href":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","label":"Article 78 on EUR-Lex"},{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/78","label":"Read Article 78 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-03-05T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:article-9-risk-management-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:article-9-risk-management-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"article-9-risk-management-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a9514f57564fd4a3e11a591c10c252f43e0e34c72665cb90781ba7e689bb0f69","label":"Full text of Article 9","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["high-risk-requirements","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-9-risk-management"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/9","label":"Read Article 9 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:conformity-ce-registration-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:conformity-ce-registration-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"conformity-ce-registration-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"da4e79a386e5b81a43a23d49b7934181d9a557f404f917b7cbbdb9f6b0986cfa","label":"Full text of Article 43","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["conformity","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:conformity-ce-registration"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/43","label":"Read Article 43 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:fria-questionnaire","legacy_id":"raip:template:fria-questionnaire","type":"template","slug":"fria-questionnaire","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"12fdf535a33a65f7bf33ab56dbdc41763fd6bca2a7906eded6a46083b829990b","label":"FRIA questionnaire","summary":"Public generator for structuring a fundamental rights impact assessment.","topics":["fundamental-rights","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:credit-or-insurance-deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-law-body","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:public-service-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/templates/fria","label":"Open public FRIA template"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:gpai-guide","legacy_id":"raip:template:gpai-guide","type":"template","slug":"gpai-guide","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"a2469dd7c21ddf62f3b35aa0078b856acda090edba8b66b46aef18f7a3abfd3c","label":"GPAI obligations route","summary":"Public guide to GPAI model obligations and exceptions.","topics":["gpai","template"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:gpai-model-provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/gpai-gids","label":"Open GPAI guide"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:template:value-chain-representative-legal-text","legacy_id":"raip:template:value-chain-representative-legal-text","type":"template","slug":"value-chain-representative-legal-text","version":"1.0.0","effective_at":"2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","valid_until":null,"payload_hash_sha256":"bd85b9ea413e52e72f7df326246c40517c3d873c63035c874a97911ff4d7797e","label":"Full text of Article 25","summary":"The full legal text in the public AI Act Explorer.","topics":["template","value-chain"],"actor_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer","praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider"],"duty_holder_ids":[],"affected_actor_ids":[],"oversight_actor_ids":[],"evidence_owner_ids":[],"duty_holder_uncertainty_status":null,"interpretation_status":null,"interpretation_note":null,"obligation_ids":["praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:value-chain-representative"],"change_ids":[],"action_ids":[],"evidence_ids":[],"control_ids":[],"template_ids":[],"conditions":[],"exceptions":[],"statements":[],"legal_status":null,"deadline_at":null,"timing_basis":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"links":[{"relation":"public_page","href":"/en/ai-act/artikel/25","label":"Read Article 25 in the AI Act Explorer"}],"review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"source_review":{"level":"editorially_reviewed","last_checked_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","next_review_due_at":"2027-02-04T00:00:00.000Z","date_basis":"first_publication"}}],"included":{"sources":[{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-system-definition-guidelines","title":{"nl":"Richtsnoeren over de definitie van een AI-systeem, C(2025) 5053 final","en":"Guidelines on the definition of an AI system, C(2025) 5053 final"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europese Commissie","en":"European Commission"},"canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-ai-system-definition-facilitate-first-ai-acts-rules-application","eli":null,"source_version":"c-2025-5053-final-2025-07-29","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"51b321c2804bc3c4deb4c0d3b19d039a9b8eecaf06c56a4bb3ade3f7d36128b8","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:commission-ai-system-definition-guidelines"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-gpai-guidelines","title":{"nl":"Richtsnoeren voor GPAI-modelaanbieders","en":"Guidelines for GPAI model providers"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europese Commissie","en":"European Commission"},"canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers","eli":null,"source_version":"checked-2026-08-08","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"b3691c417d2ea106c7767e1b78bf30f045b0172a4292cb44ba76ff45109de497","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:commission-gpai-guidelines"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-opinion-gpai-code","title":{"nl":"Advies van de Commissie over de beoordeling van de praktijkcode voor AI voor algemene doeleinden","en":"Commission opinion on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europese Commissie","en":"European Commission"},"canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-opinion-assessment-general-purpose-ai-code-practice","eli":null,"source_version":"publication-2025-08-01","verified_at":"2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"ff37f9cd6d70d4c3bf374b009c957f98bef86b883cae1f1d8742b3692ca9e6e4","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:commission-opinion-gpai-code"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-prohibited-practices-guidelines","title":{"nl":"Richtsnoeren over verboden AI-praktijken, C(2025) 5052 final","en":"Guidelines on prohibited AI practices, C(2025) 5052 final"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europese Commissie","en":"European Commission"},"canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-prohibited-artificial-intelligence-ai-practices-defined-ai-act","eli":null,"source_version":"c-2025-5052-final-2025-07-29","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"5abfc9ac7322566cc0c6f47865437049be46dd0c2a12f282f247e123667329ca","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:commission-prohibited-practices-guidelines"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:gpai-code-of-practice","title":{"nl":"Praktijkcode voor AI voor algemene doeleinden","en":"General-Purpose AI Code of Practice"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europese Commissie / AI Office","en":"European Commission / AI Office"},"canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai","eli":null,"source_version":"published-2025-07-10","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"c5c59097f402c229249c30efeda4e895ca79c2617adcdf954c890c5456cd4123","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:gpai-code-of-practice"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","title":{"nl":"EU AI-verordening 2024/1689","en":"EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europees Parlement en Raad","en":"European Parliament and Council"},"canonical_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","source_version":"original-oj-2024-07-12","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"bf0fca3e1fb47ce58924f6e736d572bb5db3812c3276c0b2891fbf328c42a5c6","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:reg-eu-2024-1689"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","title":{"nl":"Digital Omnibus over AI 2026/1744","en":"Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744"},"publisher":{"nl":"Europees Parlement en Raad","en":"European Parliament and Council"},"canonical_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","source_version":"official-journal-2026-07-24","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","fingerprint_basis":"canonical_url|source_version|verified_at","source_record_hash_sha256":"17f108dc4eb93b8ff3abf091ab8a6a6e3095ae112229f27ca9a59ded886c7864","review":{"reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","reviewer":"Praxikon release validation","review_method":"source_link_and_rule_validation","legal_status":"source_checked"},"legacy_id":"raip:source:reg-eu-2026-1744"}]},"links":{"self":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities?effective_at=2025-08-02T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&lang=en","alternate":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities?effective_at=2025-08-02T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&lang=en&format=jsonld","licence":"https://www.praxikon.com/nl/legal/terms"}}