Chapter IX · Post-market monitoring, information sharing and market surveillance
Article 89 — Monitoring actions
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.
For the purpose of carrying out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the AI Office may take the necessary actions to monitor the effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation by providers of general-purpose AI models, including their adherence to approved codes of practice.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
Downstream providers shall have the right to lodge a complaint alleging an infringement of this Regulation. A complaint shall be duly reasoned and indicate at least:
- (a)
the point of contact of the provider of the general-purpose AI model concerned;
- (b)
a description of the relevant facts, the provisions of this Regulation concerned, and the reason why the downstream provider considers that the provider of the general-purpose AI model concerned infringed this Regulation;
- (c)
any other information that the downstream provider that sent the request considers relevant, including, where appropriate, information gathered on its own initiative.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The formal analysis of Article 89
Article 6 is formalised first. The remaining articles follow.
Article 89 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