Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must track and report serious incidents to the AI Office
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder EU AI Act, Article 55(1)(c)
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
Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must track and report serious incidents to the AI Office is a legal requirement under the EU AI Act in the European Union (Article 55(1)(c)). It applies from 2 August 2025. The record carries 2 evidence examples and mappings to 2 frameworks.
- Instrument
- EU AI Act
- Jurisdiction
- European Union
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- Article 55(1)(c)
- Applies from
- 2 August 2025
- Who it binds
- General-purpose AI model provider
- Evidence examples
- 2
- Framework mappings
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
- Controls that meet it
- 2
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026
What does it require?
Providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk must keep track of, document and report without undue delay to the AI Office and, where relevant, to national competent authorities the relevant information about serious incidents and the possible corrective measures to address them. The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice sets out timelines and content that providers may follow to demonstrate compliance.
Practical action
Define serious-incident criteria for the model, a tracking log and an AI Office notification template with owner and clock.
Who does it apply to?
Providers of general-purpose AI models classified as having systemic risk under Article 51.
- Sectors
- Cross-sector / all sectors
- Use cases
- Generative AI and foundation models
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.
-
satisfiesProcessIncident coordinator · continuousAI incident management and regulatory reporting
Serves 14 recorded duties · evidence: AI incident response playbook, AI incident record, Incident report to an authority
Model-level incident criteria, log and AI Office reporting.
-
supportsPolicyHead of AI safety · annualFrontier model safety and security framework
Serves 9 recorded duties · evidence: Published frontier safety framework, Dangerous-capability evaluation report, Threshold notification to an authority
Framework defines the incident types and escalation.
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
- AI Incident Response Playbook and Log
Procedure · DOCX and XLSX · v3
- EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v44
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Serious incident tracking log for the model | register | |
| AI Office incident notification | document |
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 | Clause 10.2; Annex A.8.4 | Corrective action and incident communication. | high |
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | MANAGE 4.3, MEASURE 3.1 | Incident response and tracking of emergent risks. | high |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under EU AI Act (Article 55(1)(c)).
Who must comply with this obligation?
Providers of general-purpose AI models classified as having systemic risk under Article 51.
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 2 August 2025.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Serious incident tracking log for the model; AI Office incident notification.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 10.2; Annex A.8.4, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 MANAGE 4.3, MEASURE 3.1. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
AI incident management and regulatory reporting; Frontier model safety and security framework.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Define serious-incident criteria for the model, a tracking log and an AI Office notification template with owner and clock.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must track and report serious incidents to the AI Office (EU AI Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0045, verified 26 September 2026]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0045 (accessed 8 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0045: 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_providersofsystemicriskg,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must track and report serious incidents to the AI Office (EU AI Act)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-55-systemic-risk-incident-reporting}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-55-systemic-risk-incident-reporting},
urldate = {2026-11-08},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 8 November 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
- Report serious incidents to market surveillance authorities — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers must take corrective action and inform the supply chain about non-conforming high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services — California SB 53, California (United States)
- Implement reasonable security safeguards and notify breaches — India DPDP Act, India
- Developers must notify the Attorney General and deployers of discovered algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Deployers must notify the Attorney General of discovered algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.