The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
arXiv:2607. 02197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The society and emerging risk-based regulatory frameworks for AI underscore the need for rigorous risk assessment to ensure safe and reliable AI systems.
arXiv:2607. 23365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education.
arXiv:2506. 03218v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age.
The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
arXiv:2608. 07446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks.
arXiv:2605. 16281v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Post-deployment accountability has become central to AI governance, yet little empirical evidence shows whether monitoring, incident reporting, and impact assessment obligations are visible when AI systems fail.
arXiv:2607. 09586v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The proliferation of agentic AI systems across enterprise and public-sector contexts has outpaced the capacity of general-purpose AI risk frameworks to classify and govern them.
arXiv:2605. 23922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification.
arXiv:2502. 16184v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems.
arXiv:2607. 12588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: According to the recent European legislation, high-risk AI systems will have to adapt in order to comply with requirements related to specific areas, like risk management, data quality and governance, logging and traceability, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, and accuracy, as outlined in the European Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act.
The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.