Achieve appropriate accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder EU AI Act, Article 15
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Achieve appropriate accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity is a legal requirement under the EU AI Act in the European Union (Article 15). High-risk AI systems must achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity and perform consistently throughout their lifecycle. It applies from 2 December 2027. The record carries 2 evidence examples and mappings to 3 frameworks.
- Instrument
- EU AI Act
- Jurisdiction
- European Union
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- Article 15
- Applies from
- 2 December 2027
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer
- Evidence examples
- 2
- Framework mappings
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
- Controls that meet it
- 3
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Pending review · source-linked
What does it require?
High-risk AI systems must achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity and perform consistently throughout their lifecycle. Accuracy levels and metrics must be declared in the instructions; systems must be resilient to errors, faults and inconsistencies, address feedback loops in continuously learning systems, and resist attempts to alter use or performance, including data poisoning, model poisoning, adversarial examples and confidentiality attacks.
Practical action
Include AI-specific threat modelling and adversarial testing in your security programme.
Who does it apply to?
Providers of high-risk AI systems.
- Actors
- Provider / developer
- Sectors
- Cross-sector / all sectors
Applies from:
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesTechnical measureQuality or testing lead · at launch and on material changeAccuracy, robustness, fairness and security testing
Serves 15 recorded duties · evidence: Pre-release test report, Test plan and acceptance criteria, Release test sign-off
Declared accuracy metrics, robustness and AI-specific security testing come from the release test programme.
-
supportsTechnical measureAI security or safety lead · at launch and on material changeAdversarial and red-team testing for generative AI
Serves 8 recorded duties · evidence: Red-team exercise report, Red-team rules of engagement and scenario library, Adversarial findings tracker
Adversarial exercises cover poisoning, evasion and extraction attempts.
-
supportsTechnical measureAI system owner · continuousPost-deployment monitoring and drift detection
Serves 10 recorded duties · evidence: Post-market monitoring plan, Monitoring dashboard or periodic monitoring report, Monitoring review decision
Consistent performance over the lifecycle is confirmed in operation.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- EU AI Act Role and Risk Classifier
Checklist · XLSX · v4
- EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v32
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v3
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy metrics and test evidence | report | |
| AI security assessment | report |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every European Union duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Annex A controls on AI system verification and validation | Original editorial mapping. | medium |
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Clause 8 and Annex A security controls | Original editorial mapping for cybersecurity aspects. | medium |
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | MEASURE 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 | Validity, safety, security and resilience measurement. | high |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under EU AI Act (Article 15).
Who must comply with this obligation?
Providers of high-risk AI systems.
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 2 December 2027.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Accuracy metrics and test evidence; AI security assessment.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Annex A controls on AI system verification and validation, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 8 and Annex A security controls, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 MEASURE 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Adversarial and red-team testing for generative AI; Accuracy, robustness, fairness and security testing; Post-deployment monitoring and drift detection.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Include AI-specific threat modelling and adversarial testing in your security programme.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Achieve appropriate accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity (EU AI Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0012, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0012 (accessed 27 October 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0012: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_achieveappropriateaccura,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Achieve appropriate accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity (EU AI Act)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-accuracy-robustness-cybersecurity}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-accuracy-robustness-cybersecurity},
urldate = {2026-10-27},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 27 October 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Employers and employment agencies must obtain an independent bias audit before using an automated employment decision tool — NYC Local Law 144 (automated employment decision tools), New York (United States)
- Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must secure the model and its infrastructure — EU AI Act, European Union
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.