Skip to main content
Praxikon
Back to the explorer
ObligationApplicablev1.0.0

Article 87: reporting of infringements and protection of reporting persons

The whistleblower Directive applies to the reporting of infringements of the AI Regulation and to the protection of the persons who report them. For an organisation that falls under that Directive this means a report about an AI system runs through the same protected channel as any other report, and a person reporting who meets the conditions of that Directive may not be disadvantaged for it. Whether you fall under that Directive is not stated in Article 87 but in national transposition law.

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:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements
Payload hash (sha256)
57d296c3c6d5ddab8a529f000c40a1881459a3576d6c39ee4b5c031b9296adf6

Citation line

Praxikon, "Article 87: reporting of infringements and protection of reporting persons", praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements@1.0.0, dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0 (schema 1.5.0), effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z, sha256 57d296c3c6d5ddab8a529f000c40a1881459a3576d6c39ee4b5c031b9296adf6
Version
1.0.0
Legal time (effective_at)
2 August 2026
Knowledge time (known_at)
14 August 2026
Closed on
Not closed
Application date
2 August 2026
Topics
fundamental-rights, governance

Review status: Placed against the official source (14 August 2026). Next check due by 10 February 2027. The check date is the knowledge date of this version; no later recheck has been recorded.

Who must act and who is affected

On an obligation the addressee is recorded separately from the party that is merely affected. That difference decides who a supervisory authority addresses and who has work to do without the duty resting on them.

No duty holder assigned

The facts are known, but who carries the duty does not follow from the text and takes a legal judgement. We do not make that judgement.

Duty holder

Not recorded on this object.

Affected actor

Oversight

Not recorded on this object.

Evidence owner

Not recorded on this object.

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.

Who is affected without being the addressee

2 of 2 shown

This role is practically affected without being the addressee: it receives the information, has to cooperate, or absorbs the consequences in its own process.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allThe trigger is a report of an infringement of this Regulation, whatever the risk class of the system: a report about an AI system outside the high-risk category is covered just as much. The protection itself is not unconditional. It comes from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which in Article 4 requires the person reporting to have obtained the information in a work-related context, and in Article 6(1)(a) requires reasonable grounds to believe that what was reported was true and fell within the scope of that Directive.
    • ExceptionArticle 87 creates no channel requirement. That requirement comes from Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Paragraph 1 places it on legal entities in the private and the public sector; paragraph 3 limits paragraph 1 in the private sector to entities with 50 or more workers. That threshold is not general, however. Paragraph 4 provides that the threshold in paragraph 3 shall not apply to entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, following a risk assessment, to require entities with fewer than 50 workers as well. Paragraph 9 applies paragraph 1 to all legal entities in the public sector, with the option for a Member State to exempt municipalities under 10 000 inhabitants and other small public entities. Below fifty workers there is therefore not simply no channel requirement: it depends on the sector you fall in and on what your Member State has decided. The right to report and the protection of the person reporting exist in any event, through the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.
    • ExceptionThe material scope of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 runs through Article 2(1)(a), which refers to the Union acts listed in the Annex to that Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was not added to that Annex: it makes the Directive applicable directly, in Article 87. National transposition law that ties its own scope to that same Annex, such as the Dutch Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, may therefore lag behind the Regulation. Whether a report about an AI system falls under national law as a result is not settled.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What has to be done

1 of 1 shown

This is what concretely has to be done under the obligation.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allThe trigger is a report of an infringement of this Regulation, whatever the risk class of the system: a report about an AI system outside the high-risk category is covered just as much. The protection itself is not unconditional. It comes from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which in Article 4 requires the person reporting to have obtained the information in a work-related context, and in Article 6(1)(a) requires reasonable grounds to believe that what was reported was true and fell within the scope of that Directive.
    • ExceptionArticle 87 creates no channel requirement. That requirement comes from Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Paragraph 1 places it on legal entities in the private and the public sector; paragraph 3 limits paragraph 1 in the private sector to entities with 50 or more workers. That threshold is not general, however. Paragraph 4 provides that the threshold in paragraph 3 shall not apply to entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, following a risk assessment, to require entities with fewer than 50 workers as well. Paragraph 9 applies paragraph 1 to all legal entities in the public sector, with the option for a Member State to exempt municipalities under 10 000 inhabitants and other small public entities. Below fifty workers there is therefore not simply no channel requirement: it depends on the sector you fall in and on what your Member State has decided. The right to report and the protection of the person reporting exist in any event, through the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.
    • ExceptionThe material scope of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 runs through Article 2(1)(a), which refers to the Union acts listed in the Annex to that Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was not added to that Annex: it makes the Directive applicable directly, in Article 87. National transposition law that ties its own scope to that same Annex, such as the Dutch Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, may therefore lag behind the Regulation. Whether a report about an AI system falls under national law as a result is not settled.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What has to be recorded

1 of 1 shown

This is what has to be in the file to show that the action was carried out.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allThe trigger is a report of an infringement of this Regulation, whatever the risk class of the system: a report about an AI system outside the high-risk category is covered just as much. The protection itself is not unconditional. It comes from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which in Article 4 requires the person reporting to have obtained the information in a work-related context, and in Article 6(1)(a) requires reasonable grounds to believe that what was reported was true and fell within the scope of that Directive.
    • ExceptionArticle 87 creates no channel requirement. That requirement comes from Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Paragraph 1 places it on legal entities in the private and the public sector; paragraph 3 limits paragraph 1 in the private sector to entities with 50 or more workers. That threshold is not general, however. Paragraph 4 provides that the threshold in paragraph 3 shall not apply to entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, following a risk assessment, to require entities with fewer than 50 workers as well. Paragraph 9 applies paragraph 1 to all legal entities in the public sector, with the option for a Member State to exempt municipalities under 10 000 inhabitants and other small public entities. Below fifty workers there is therefore not simply no channel requirement: it depends on the sector you fall in and on what your Member State has decided. The right to report and the protection of the person reporting exist in any event, through the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.
    • ExceptionThe material scope of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 runs through Article 2(1)(a), which refers to the Union acts listed in the Annex to that Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was not added to that Annex: it makes the Directive applicable directly, in Article 87. National transposition law that ties its own scope to that same Annex, such as the Dutch Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, may therefore lag behind the Regulation. Whether a report about an AI system falls under national law as a result is not settled.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What keeps it in place

1 of 1 shown

This is what keeps compliance in place over time, periodic or event-driven.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allThe trigger is a report of an infringement of this Regulation, whatever the risk class of the system: a report about an AI system outside the high-risk category is covered just as much. The protection itself is not unconditional. It comes from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which in Article 4 requires the person reporting to have obtained the information in a work-related context, and in Article 6(1)(a) requires reasonable grounds to believe that what was reported was true and fell within the scope of that Directive.
    • ExceptionArticle 87 creates no channel requirement. That requirement comes from Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Paragraph 1 places it on legal entities in the private and the public sector; paragraph 3 limits paragraph 1 in the private sector to entities with 50 or more workers. That threshold is not general, however. Paragraph 4 provides that the threshold in paragraph 3 shall not apply to entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, following a risk assessment, to require entities with fewer than 50 workers as well. Paragraph 9 applies paragraph 1 to all legal entities in the public sector, with the option for a Member State to exempt municipalities under 10 000 inhabitants and other small public entities. Below fifty workers there is therefore not simply no channel requirement: it depends on the sector you fall in and on what your Member State has decided. The right to report and the protection of the person reporting exist in any event, through the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.
    • ExceptionThe material scope of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 runs through Article 2(1)(a), which refers to the Union acts listed in the Annex to that Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was not added to that Annex: it makes the Directive applicable directly, in Article 87. National transposition law that ties its own scope to that same Annex, such as the Dutch Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, may therefore lag behind the Regulation. Whether a report about an AI system falls under national law as a result is not settled.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Public tools

1 of 1 shown

This is the public route a reader can actually use.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allThe trigger is a report of an infringement of this Regulation, whatever the risk class of the system: a report about an AI system outside the high-risk category is covered just as much. The protection itself is not unconditional. It comes from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which in Article 4 requires the person reporting to have obtained the information in a work-related context, and in Article 6(1)(a) requires reasonable grounds to believe that what was reported was true and fell within the scope of that Directive.
    • ExceptionArticle 87 creates no channel requirement. That requirement comes from Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Paragraph 1 places it on legal entities in the private and the public sector; paragraph 3 limits paragraph 1 in the private sector to entities with 50 or more workers. That threshold is not general, however. Paragraph 4 provides that the threshold in paragraph 3 shall not apply to entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, following a risk assessment, to require entities with fewer than 50 workers as well. Paragraph 9 applies paragraph 1 to all legal entities in the public sector, with the option for a Member State to exempt municipalities under 10 000 inhabitants and other small public entities. Below fifty workers there is therefore not simply no channel requirement: it depends on the sector you fall in and on what your Member State has decided. The right to report and the protection of the person reporting exist in any event, through the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.
    • ExceptionThe material scope of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 runs through Article 2(1)(a), which refers to the Union acts listed in the Annex to that Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was not added to that Annex: it makes the Directive applicable directly, in Article 87. National transposition law that ties its own scope to that same Annex, such as the Dutch Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, may therefore lag behind the Regulation. Whether a report about an AI system falls under national law as a result is not settled.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What points at this object

Objects hanging off this obligation

4 of 4 shown

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

  1. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies where an internal reporting requirement already rests on you under the national transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1937, in principle at fifty or more workers, and you develop or use AI systems covered by the Regulation. To be revisited whenever your reporting arrangement or that national law changes.
    • ExceptionDoes not apply to organisations falling outside the channel requirement under Article 8(3) or Article 8(9) of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. For them there is nothing to set up; the person reporting retains the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Relation recorded on: Make sure a report about an AI system reaches your reporting channel

    Consequence

  2. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Protection of the person reporting

    Consequence

  3. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: File of reports about AI systems

    Consequence

  4. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 87

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Full text of Article 87

    Consequence

What this object states

Official fact

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

  • Directive (EU) 2019/1937 shall apply to the reporting of infringements of this Regulation and the protection of persons reporting such infringements.

Our interpretation

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

  • This article is short because the work was done elsewhere, and that is exactly why it gets overlooked. Its practical meaning lies in the direction of travel: Articles 85 and 86 concern who knocks on your door from outside, Article 87 concerns who steps out from within. That is almost always the first person to notice something. The developer who knows the logging has not run for months, the recruiter who sees the selection model filtering out candidates on something that should never have been in it: they hold the facts a regulator only obtains after an investigation. Three things follow. If you must already have a reporting channel, that channel must be able to receive such a report and recognise it as touching the AI Regulation, because a report handled as a general complaint disappears into a different process. Whether you must have that channel is not a matter of a single number. Article 8(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 imposes the channel requirement in the private sector at fifty or more workers, but paragraph 4 sets that threshold aside for entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, after a risk assessment, to require smaller entities as well, and paragraph 9 imposes the requirement on all legal entities in the public sector, with an optional exemption a Member State may make for municipalities with fewer than ten thousand inhabitants or fewer than fifty workers, and for other public entities with fewer than fifty workers. Below fifty workers the question is therefore which sector you are in and what your Member State has decided, not whether you clear the threshold. If you are genuinely outside each of those cases the channel need not exist, and even then the person reporting has somewhere to go: Article 10 of that Directive gives them an external route to the competent authority without having to report internally first, and Article 15 permits public disclosure under conditions. And the protection is not a formality, but it is not enforced through this Regulation: Article 19 of the Directive prohibits retaliation and Article 21 sets out the protective measures, and enforcement runs through national whistleblower law, in the Netherlands through the Huis voor Klokkenluiders and the civil courts. Article 99 of this Regulation does not list Article 87 among the fineable infringements; there is therefore no AI Act fine for disadvantaging a person who reported. Note too that the report here does not depend on a decision or on harm, whereas the right to an explanation in Article 86 does.

    • Locator: Article 87praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689Open official source
    • Locator: Directive (EU) 2019/1937, Article 8(1), (3), (4), (7) and (9)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:dir-eu-2019-1937Open official source
    • Locator: Directive (EU) 2019/1937, Article 9(1), Article 16 and Article 18praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:dir-eu-2019-1937Open official source

Recommended step

A practical step we consider appropriate. Not an obligation following from the Regulation.

  • First determine whether Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and national transposition law apply to you at all: below fifty workers there is in principle no channel requirement, in which case this object is not a set-up question for you. If you are covered, check whether your existing reporting channel recognises a report about an AI system and whether whoever receives it knows the AI Regulation may be engaged. Record per report what was reported, about which system, what was done with it and when feedback was given, and measure that against the deadlines in Article 9(1) of that Directive: acknowledgement of receipt within seven days under point (b), feedback within three months under point (f). Keep the identity of the person reporting out of what goes to line managers (Article 16), retain no longer than necessary and proportionate (Article 18(1)), and record an oral report only with consent (Article 18(2) to (4)). Also decide whether you will handle anonymous reports: Article 6(2) leaves that choice to the Member State, so check what your national law says. Finally, put to your lawyer the question whether your national whistleblower act already covers AI Act infringements, because such an act usually ties its scope to the Annex to the Directive and Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 is not listed there.

    • Locator: Article 87praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689Open official source
    • Locator: Directive (EU) 2019/1937, Article 8(1), (3), (4), (7) and (9)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:dir-eu-2019-1937Open official source
    • Locator: Directive (EU) 2019/1937, Article 9(1), Article 16 and Article 18praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:dir-eu-2019-1937Open official source

When this applies

  1. 1The trigger is a report of an infringement of this Regulation, whatever the risk class of the system: a report about an AI system outside the high-risk category is covered just as much. The protection itself is not unconditional. It comes from Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which in Article 4 requires the person reporting to have obtained the information in a work-related context, and in Article 6(1)(a) requires reasonable grounds to believe that what was reported was true and fell within the scope of that Directive.

When this does not apply

  • Article 87 creates no channel requirement. That requirement comes from Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Paragraph 1 places it on legal entities in the private and the public sector; paragraph 3 limits paragraph 1 in the private sector to entities with 50 or more workers. That threshold is not general, however. Paragraph 4 provides that the threshold in paragraph 3 shall not apply to entities falling within the scope of the Union acts referred to in Parts I.B and II of the Annex to that Directive, which cover financial services, anti-money laundering and transport safety among others. Paragraph 7 allows a Member State, following a risk assessment, to require entities with fewer than 50 workers as well. Paragraph 9 applies paragraph 1 to all legal entities in the public sector, with the option for a Member State to exempt municipalities under 10 000 inhabitants and other small public entities. Below fifty workers there is therefore not simply no channel requirement: it depends on the sector you fall in and on what your Member State has decided. The right to report and the protection of the person reporting exist in any event, through the external route of Article 10 of that Directive.
  • The material scope of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 runs through Article 2(1)(a), which refers to the Union acts listed in the Annex to that Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 was not added to that Annex: it makes the Directive applicable directly, in Article 87. National transposition law that ties its own scope to that same Annex, such as the Dutch Wet bescherming klokkenluiders, may therefore lag behind the Regulation. Whether a report about an AI system falls under national law as a result is not settled.

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, "Article 87: reporting of infringements and protection of reporting persons",
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements@1.0.0,
dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0 (schema 1.5.0),
effective_at 2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z,
sha256 57d296c3c6d5ddab8a529f000c40a1881459a3576d6c39ee4b5c031b9296adf6,
https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-87-reporting-infringements
(https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-87-reporting-infringements&effective_at=2026-08-02&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en, accessed 2026-09-21)

Short form

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements@1.0.0 (sha256 57d296c3)

BibTeX

@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-obligation-article-87-reporting-infringements-1-0-0,
  author       = {{Praxikon}},
  title        = {Article 87: reporting of infringements and protection of reporting persons},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {1.0.0},
  number       = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements},
  howpublished = {AI Act Change \& Evidence Graph, dataset 2.2.0, schema 1.5.0},
  note         = {effective_at 2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 57d296c3c6d5ddab8a529f000c40a1881459a3576d6c39ee4b5c031b9296adf6},
  url          = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-87-reporting-infringements},
  urldate      = {2026-09-21},
  language     = {en}
}

CSL JSON

[
  {
    "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements@1.0.0",
    "type": "dataset",
    "title": "Article 87: reporting of infringements and protection of reporting persons",
    "container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
    "publisher": "Praxikon",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-87-reporting-infringements",
    "URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-87-reporting-infringements",
    "language": "en",
    "issued": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          14
        ]
      ]
    },
    "accessed": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          9,
          21
        ]
      ]
    },
    "note": "dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0; schema 1.5.0; effective_at 2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 57d296c3c6d5ddab8a529f000c40a1881459a3576d6c39ee4b5c031b9296adf6; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-87-reporting-infringements&effective_at=2026-08-02&known_at=2026-08-14&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 JSONOpen as JSON-LDHuman explanationRead the methodology