Skip to main content
Praxikon

Explorer

Why this object hangs off that object

Every object in this graph has its own address and can be cited on its own. This page shows which objects exist and, once you open one, why it hangs off another: from which source with its locator, through which condition or exception, to which consequence.

Since the last release an obligation states separately who carries the duty and who is merely affected. Filter by duty holder and you get the duties resting on a role; filter by actor and you get everything that is about that role. That difference is visible on purpose.

This is the knowledge layer under the four levels of the assessment. See the four levels.

Filters

Only dimensions the data carries. A dimension without values is absent rather than empty.

Eleven types, including evidence, control and standard.

Is about this role. Walks the role hierarchy upward.

The duty rests on this role, not merely: it is about it.

The article route this object hangs off.

Free slugs, not a taxonomy with objects of its own.

The phase of the object, not its quality.

Whether this object carries a source line of its own.

Searches label, summary, topics, conditions and statement texts. The ordering is the same heuristic as the search API; build on the identifiers, not on the ranking.

Time

Two axes. Legal time is what applied; knowledge time is what we had published by then. Leaving them empty means the default of this release.

Clear all

Objects

9 objects in this selection.

  1. ObligationApplicablev1.0.020 relations

    Article 111(2): legacy high-risk systems and the 2 August 2030 date

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-111-legacy-public-systems

    High-risk AI systems placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III, since the Digital Omnibus 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems, come under the high-risk requirements of that Chapter only once their design is significantly changed as from that date. This is not an exemption from the whole Regulation: Article 4 and Article 50 keep running. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the carve out falls away entirely: their providers and deployers must in any case comply with the requirements and obligations by 2 August 2030.

    Placed against the official source | high-risk, timeline

  2. ObligationUpcomingv1.0.013 relations

    Article 26: obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systems

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-26-deployer-obligations

    Twelve paragraphs governing day-to-day use: use in line with the instructions, human oversight by competent people, input data, monitoring and notification, log retention, informing workers before deployment, registration by public authorities and informing the people about whom decisions are made.

    Placed against the official source | high-risk-requirements

  3. ObligationUpcomingv1.0.024 relations

    Article 27: FRIA

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-27-fria

    Fundamental rights impact assessment before deploying certain high-risk AI systems.

    Placed against the official source | fundamental-rights, high-risk

  4. ObligationApplicablev2.0.046 relations

    Article 4: AI literacy

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4-ai-literacy

    Providers and deployers take measures that support the development of AI literacy.

    Placed against the official source | ai-literacy

  5. ObligationApplicablev1.0.016 relations

    Article 4a: legal basis for bias testing with special categories of personal data

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-4a-bias-testing-legal-basis

    Article 4a grants permission rather than instruction, and to two different sets of parties. Paragraph 1 allows only the provider of a high-risk AI system to process special categories of personal data by way of exception, to the extent strictly necessary for bias detection and correction within the meaning of Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), and only where all six conditions (a) to (f) are met. Paragraph 2 opens the same room to providers and deployers of other AI systems and models and to deployers of high-risk systems, but only for bias likely to affect the health and safety of persons, to have a negative impact on fundamental rights or to lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, and subject to the same six conditions. Until 27 July 2026 this basis sat in Article 10(5).

    Placed against the official source | fundamental-rights, high-risk-requirements

  6. ObligationApplicablev1.0.030 relations

    Article 5: prohibited practices

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-5-prohibited-practices

    The prohibition of AI practices carrying unacceptable risk, such as manipulation, social scoring and certain biometric applications.

    Placed against the official source | prohibited-practices

  7. ObligationApplicablev1.0.048 relations

    Article 50: transparency

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-50-transparency

    Specific disclosure, marking and labelling duties for certain AI systems and synthetic content.

    Placed against the official source | transparency

  8. ObligationApplicablev2.0.011 relations

    Article 85: right to lodge a complaint with the market surveillance authority

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-85-right-to-complain

    Anyone with grounds to consider that the Regulation has been infringed may lodge a complaint with the relevant market surveillance authority. For an organisation that means your own staff, customers and candidates have a route to the regulator that does not run through you.

    Placed against the official source | fundamental-rights

  9. ObligationApplicablev2.0.010 relations

    Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-86-right-to-explanation

    A person affected by a decision that a deployer takes on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III may request an explanation of the role of that system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken.

    Placed against the official source | fundamental-rights

What this explorer does not do

  • There is no article object. The article sits as a locator on the citations of an obligation, as free text. Filtering on the obligation is the same question, and the data does carry that.
  • No object carries an Annex III domain or use case. A selection of the form "systems for this purpose" cannot be expressed here.
  • A locator hangs on a statement in the data, not on a relation. The source next to a path is the source anchor of the object carrying the relation, not proof of that one connection.
  • The split between duty holder and affected actor exists on obligations only. On every other type the actor list is still one undifferentiated list.
  • The graph stores no inverse relations. The incoming direction is computed here over the same release and adds nothing to the data.
  • Topics are free slugs, not a taxonomy with objects, labels or a hierarchy of their own.

The same selection as data

The explorer and the API read the same object against the same two time axes. What you see here can be fetched with the same parameters.