ExampleEditorialv1.0.0

Performance scoring for staff goes wrong: report or not

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.

The official source remains authoritative. This is general information about obligations and not legal advice. See this object on the map

Address and citation

This object has an address of its own that is never renamed or reused. Store the identifier in your own file, not the title or the link.

Identifier: praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding
Payload hash (sha256): 10323fa9be53a342a148727da06c2c2e2326f11f0d1102e4586b4686a08f6df9

Citation line

Praxikon, "Performance scoring for staff goes wrong: report or not", praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding@1.0.0, dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.1.0 (schema 1.4.0), effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z, sha256 10323fa9be53a342a148727da06c2c2e2326f11f0d1102e4586b4686a08f6df9

Version: 1.0.0
Legal time (effective_at): 1 August 2024
Knowledge time (known_at): 8 August 2026
Closed on: Not closed
Topics: examples

Review status: Placed against the official source (8 August 2026). Next check due by 4 February 2027. The check date is the knowledge date of this version; no later recheck has been recorded.

What this object links to

Every relation appears below as a path: from the source with its locator, through the conditions and exceptions of the object carrying the relation, to the consequence. A locator belongs to a statement in the data and not to a relation, so the source is the source anchor of the carrying object.

The obligation this hangs off

1 of 1 shown

The object belongs to this obligation. The source line it hangs off sits there.

Source
Official fact on this object, with its locator.
- EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689
  Locator: Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2) and (6)
  praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689
  Open official source
Via
No condition or exception recorded on this object.
Consequence
- ObligationArticle 73: serious incident reporting
  praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-73-incident-reporting

What this object is about

2 of 2 shown

The object is about this role. Undifferentiated: it does not follow that the duty rests on this role.

Source
Official fact on this object, with its locator.
- EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689
  Locator: Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2) and (6)
  praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689
  Open official source
Via
No condition or exception recorded on this object.
Consequence
- ActorDeployer
  praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:deployer
- ActorProvider of an AI system
  praxikon:eu:ai-act:actor:provider

What this object states

Official fact

Attributable to a named primary source, with a locator. Where they differ, the official source prevails.

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.
- Locator: Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2) and (6)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689Open official source

Our interpretation

Our own reading. It can change without the law changing, and it is not the position of a supervisory authority.

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.
- Locator: Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2) and (6)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689Open official source

When this applies

No condition recorded on this object.

When this does not apply

No exception recorded on this object.

Referring to this object

Citation block

Copy this reference into your advice, article or file. The identifier, the version and the hash keep the statement findable later, even once the dataset has moved on.

Reference

Praxikon, "Performance scoring for staff goes wrong: report or not",
praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding@1.0.0,
dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.1.0 (schema 1.4.0),
effective_at 2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z,
sha256 10323fa9be53a342a148727da06c2c2e2326f11f0d1102e4586b4686a08f6df9,
https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/example/example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding
(https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aexample%3Aexample-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding&effective_at=2024-08-01&known_at=2026-08-08&lang=en, accessed 2026-08-25)

Short form

praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding@1.0.0 (sha256 10323fa9)

BibTeX

@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-example-example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding-1-0-0,
  author       = {{Praxikon}},
  title        = {Performance scoring for staff goes wrong: report or not},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {1.0.0},
  number       = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding},
  howpublished = {AI Act Change \& Evidence Graph, dataset 2.1.0, schema 1.4.0},
  note         = {effective_at 2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 10323fa9be53a342a148727da06c2c2e2326f11f0d1102e4586b4686a08f6df9},
  url          = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/example/example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding},
  urldate      = {2026-08-25},
  language     = {en}
}

CSL JSON

[
  {
    "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding@1.0.0",
    "type": "dataset",
    "title": "Performance scoring for staff goes wrong: report or not",
    "container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
    "publisher": "Praxikon",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding",
    "URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/example/example-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding",
    "language": "en",
    "issued": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          8
        ]
      ]
    },
    "accessed": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          25
        ]
      ]
    },
    "note": "dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.1.0; schema 1.4.0; effective_at 2024-08-01T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 10323fa9be53a342a148727da06c2c2e2326f11f0d1102e4586b4686a08f6df9; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aexample%3Aexample-beoordelingssysteem-personeel-incidentmelding&effective_at=2024-08-01&known_at=2026-08-08&lang=en; licence https://www.praxikon.com/nl/legal/terms"
  }
]

How to verify a reference later is set out in the methodology. Terms

For agents and integrations

This page and the machine output come from the same object and the same two time axes.

Open as JSON Open as JSON-LD Read the methodology