Chapter III · High-risk AI systems
Article 21 — Cooperation with competent authorities
Official text
Each paragraph records where its wording comes from. Only text reproduced unchanged from the Official Journal is authentic; consolidated text is editorial and has no legal value. Paragraphs, subparagraphs and points each have their own link.
Providers of high-risk AI systems shall, upon a reasoned request by a competent authority, provide that authority all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2, in a language which can be easily understood by the authority in one of the official languages of the institutions of the Union as indicated by the Member State concerned.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
Upon a reasoned request by a competent authority, providers shall also give the requesting competent authority, as applicable, access to the automatically generated logs of the high-risk AI system referred to in Article 12(1), to the extent such logs are under their control.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
Any information obtained by a competent authority pursuant to this Article shall be treated in accordance with the confidentiality obligations set out in Article 78.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The formal analysis of Article 21
Article 6 is formalised first. The remaining articles follow.
Article 21 is formalised node by node: each rule as a deontic position with its operator, each exception with its rank, each predicate resolved against the definitions in Article 3.
What members get, per article
- the rule logic: every norm as a formal position, with the defeater chain that decides which exception wins
- the competency questions and their answers, every unanswered one marked as a gap and named
- the ontology: predicates bound to AISV (AI Standardisation Vocabulary) and to the definitions they depend on, exportable as JSON-LD and OWL
- the documentation: the Article 6(4) assessment record generated from a fact set, with its derivation and the version of the law it was decided against
Built for providers claiming the 6(3) derogation, for the counsel who has to defend that claim, and for the auditor who reads it afterwards.
Access is invite-only and opening in stages. Article 6 is formalised first; the remaining articles follow.
No mail client? Write to hello@signatu.com
Already a member? Sign in
Commentary in preparation
The official text above is complete. The editorial layer for this article — duties, the roles bound by them, the AISV concepts that model them, and the European standards written to support them — is in preparation, in the same form as the articles already published.
See the published articles