Chapter IX · Post-market monitoring, information sharing and market surveillance
Article 90 — Alerts of systemic risks by the scientific panel
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.
The scientific panel may provide a qualified alert to the AI Office where it has reason to suspect that:
- (a)
a general-purpose AI model poses concrete identifiable risk at Union level; or
- (b)
a general-purpose AI model meets the conditions referred to in Article 51.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
Upon such qualified alert, the Commission, through the AI Office and after having informed the Board, may exercise the powers laid down in this Section for the purpose of assessing the matter. The AI Office shall inform the Board of any measure according to Articles 91 to 94.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
A qualified alert shall be duly reasoned and indicate at least:
- (a)
the point of contact of the provider of the general-purpose AI model with systemic risk concerned;
- (b)
a description of the relevant facts and the reasons for the alert by the scientific panel;
- (c)
any other information that the scientific panel considers to be relevant, including, where appropriate, information gathered on its own initiative.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The formal analysis of Article 90
Article 6 is formalised first. The remaining articles follow.
Article 90 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