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. ObligationApplicablev1.0.010 relations

    Articles 28 to 39: notifying authorities and notified bodies

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-28-39-notified-bodies

    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.

    Placed against the official source | conformity, governance

  2. ObligationApplicablev1.0.016 relations

    Article 4: AI literacy

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

    Original duty to take measures for a sufficient level of AI literacy.

    Placed against the official source | ai-literacy

  3. ObligationApplicablev1.0.015 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

  4. ObligationApplicablev1.0.014 relations

    Article 52: notification of a GPAI model with systemic risk

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-52-systemic-risk-classification

    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.

    Placed against the official source | gpai-systemic-risk

  5. ObligationApplicablev1.0.016 relations

    Article 53: GPAI model providers

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-53-gpai

    Documentation, information, copyright and transparency duties for providers of general-purpose AI models.

    Placed against the official source | gpai

  6. ObligationApplicablev1.0.013 relations

    Article 54: authorised representative of a provider of a GPAI model

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-54-gpai-authorised-representative

    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.

    Hangs off: Article 53: GPAI model providers, Article 55: GPAI models with systemic risk

    Placed against the official source | gpai, value-chain

  7. ObligationApplicablev1.0.015 relations

    Article 55: GPAI models with systemic risk

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-55-gpai-systemic-risk

    Additional duties for the most capable general-purpose AI models, on top of Article 53.

    Placed against the official source | gpai-systemic-risk

  8. ObligationApplicablev1.0.111 relations

    Article 56: codes of practice for general-purpose AI models

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-56-gpai-codes-of-practice

    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.

    Placed against the official source | governance, gpai, gpai-systemic-risk

  9. ObligationApplicablev1.0.012 relations

    Article 78: confidentiality of what you submit to an authority

    praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-78-confidentiality

    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.

    Placed against the official source | enforcement, governance

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.