+Article 92 Power to conduct evaluations

Article 92 Power to conduct evaluations

Article 92

Power to conduct evaluations

1.   The AI Office, after consulting the Board, may conduct evaluations of the general-purpose AI model concerned:

(a)

to assess compliance of the provider with obligations under this Regulation, where the information gathered pursuant to Article 91 is insufficient; or

(b)

to investigate systemic risks at Union level of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk, in particular following a qualified alert from the scientific panel in accordance with Article 90(1), point (a).

2.   The Commission may decide to appoint independent experts to carry out evaluations on its behalf, including from the scientific panel established pursuant to Article 68. Independent experts appointed for this task shall meet the criteria outlined in Article 68(2).

3.   For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Commission may request access to the general-purpose AI model concerned through APIs or further appropriate technical means and tools, including source code.

4.   The request for access shall state the legal basis, the purpose and reasons of the request and set the period within which the access is to be provided, and the fines provided for in Article 101 for failure to provide access.

5.   The providers of the general-purpose AI model concerned or its representative shall supply the information requested. In the case of legal persons, companies or firms, or where the provider has no legal personality, the persons authorised to represent them by law or by their statutes, shall provide the access requested on behalf of the provider of the general-purpose AI model concerned.

6.   The Commission shall adopt implementing acts setting out the detailed arrangements and the conditions for the evaluations, including the detailed arrangements for involving independent experts, and the procedure for the selection thereof. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 98(2).

7.   Prior to requesting access to the general-purpose AI model concerned, the AI Office may initiate a structured dialogue with the provider of the general-purpose AI model to gather more information on the internal testing of the model, internal safeguards for preventing systemic risks, and other internal procedures and measures the provider has taken to mitigate such risks.

1. Übersicht

1.1 Referenzen

1.2 Identifizierte Anforderungen

1.3 Related Standards

2. Identifizierte Anforderungen

Anforderungen

3. Related Standards

Standards
SCF Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires

Description

Mechanisms exist to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Legal review

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Legal review

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Legal review

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Legal review

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Legal review

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards, procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders, investigations, etc.).

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Impressum Deutsch Englisch