Chapter III · High-risk AI systems
Article 42 — Presumption of conformity with certain requirements
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.
High-risk AI systems that have been trained and tested on data reflecting the specific geographical, behavioural, contextual or functional setting within which they are intended to be used shall be presumed to comply with the relevant requirements laid down in Article 10(4).
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
High-risk AI systems that have been certified or for which a statement of conformity has been issued under a cybersecurity scheme pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/881 and the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union shall be presumed to comply with the cybersecurity requirements set out in Article 15 of this Regulation in so far as the cybersecurity certificate or statement of conformity or parts thereof cover those requirements.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
Where high-risk AI systems fall within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 and the conditions laid down in Article 12(1) of that Regulation are fulfilled, such systems shall be deemed to comply with the cybersecurity requirements set out in Article 15 of this Regulation.
Consolidated text — no legal value · amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
The formal analysis of Article 42
Article 6 is formalised first. The remaining articles follow.
Article 42 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