ExampleEditorialv1.0.0

Proctoring during an exam overshoots: from signal to reporting duty

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exam and finds that a group of students is systematically and wrongly flagged as suspicious, after which grades were withdrawn.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.

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-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding
Payload hash (sha256): 9acab6c994b68ac7110c3307f8907ee18580a895ef51f8ed17588a3e03b73504

Citation line

Praxikon, "Proctoring during an exam overshoots: from signal to reporting duty", praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-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 9acab6c994b68ac7110c3307f8907ee18580a895ef51f8ed17588a3e03b73504

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), (5) and (7)
  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), (5) and (7)
  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) 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.
- Locator: Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2), (5) and (7)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.

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.
- Locator: Article 3(49), Article 26(5) and Article 73(1), (2), (5) and (7)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, "Proctoring during an exam overshoots: from signal to reporting duty",
praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-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 9acab6c994b68ac7110c3307f8907ee18580a895ef51f8ed17588a3e03b73504,
https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/example/example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding
(https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aexample%3Aexample-proctoring-tentamen-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-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding@1.0.0 (sha256 9acab6c9)

BibTeX

@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-example-example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding-1-0-0,
  author       = {{Praxikon}},
  title        = {Proctoring during an exam overshoots: from signal to reporting duty},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {1.0.0},
  number       = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-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 9acab6c994b68ac7110c3307f8907ee18580a895ef51f8ed17588a3e03b73504},
  url          = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/example/example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding},
  urldate      = {2026-08-25},
  language     = {en}
}

CSL JSON

[
  {
    "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding@1.0.0",
    "type": "dataset",
    "title": "Proctoring during an exam overshoots: from signal to reporting duty",
    "container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
    "publisher": "Praxikon",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:example:example-proctoring-tentamen-incidentmelding",
    "URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/example/example-proctoring-tentamen-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 9acab6c994b68ac7110c3307f8907ee18580a895ef51f8ed17588a3e03b73504; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aexample%3Aexample-proctoring-tentamen-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