Choose your jurisdiction, entity, decision and role before relying on a mapping. The 45 handbook practices, 12 specifications and 112 July compendium controls retain separate identities. Each relationship is an editorial interpretation of how a proposed safeguard can contribute; it is not a compliance verdict.
Support if applicable · scoped law, rules or supervisory expectationsGuidance alignment · published voluntary or regulator guidanceUpstream provider duty · model provider obligation; request its evidenceIndustry reference · industry white paperScope-level alignment · public ISO scope; clauses and conformity not inspectedDomain analogy · transferable discipline outside agentic scopeDraft alignment · consultation text
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary standard. Published management-system standard.
Only ISO’s public catalogue scope was inspected. All mappings are scope-level alignments; no paid clause text, Annex A conformity or certification verdict is claimed.
When relevant: Article 9: relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary guidance standard. Published guidance standard.
Public catalogue scope only. Scope-level alignment, not a verified clause-by-clause assessment.
Keep action, exposure and time limits outside agent-editable state, including retries and descendants. Proposed budget mechanisms support risk bounding; the sources do not prescribe universal numeric limits.
When relevant: Article 9: relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary guidance standard. Published guidance standard.
Public catalogue scope only. Scope-level alignment, not a verified clause-by-clause assessment.
Measure relevant cohort outcomes, burdens and exclusions across routing and intermediate actions as well as the final decision. Statistical disparity alone is not a complete legal conclusion.
When relevant: Article 10(2)(f)–(g): relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Creditors and covered credit decisions; notification procedures and exceptions vary by application and applicant.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Current §§1002.4 and 1002.9. Use the rule and its official interpretation; do not rely on withdrawn AI circulars.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary standard. Published management-system standard.
Only ISO’s public catalogue scope was inspected. All mappings are scope-level alignments; no paid clause text, Annex A conformity or certification verdict is claimed.
Reviewers need competence, time, evidence and the authority to change or stop a consequential action. Measure correction rather than counting approvals.
Collect: Reviewer test results; workload and response times; held actions; corrections and halt exercises.
When relevant: Article 14: high-risk provider oversight design. Article 26(2): high-risk deployer assignment of competent, trained and authorised oversight. Chapter III application dates and transitional rules matter.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Article 9: relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary guidance standard. Published guidance standard.
Public catalogue scope only. Scope-level alignment, not a verified clause-by-clause assessment.
Keep action, exposure and time limits outside agent-editable state, including retries and descendants. Proposed budget mechanisms support risk bounding; the sources do not prescribe universal numeric limits.
Demonstrate operator and reviewer competence, workload capacity, and understanding of role limits.
Evidence from the original item
Training rubric, planted cases, staffing and burden evidence.
Accountable role
Business owner and enterprise risk
T05 · Training and end-user understanding
Demonstrate that operators, reviewers and affected users understand limitations and their responsibilities. Training attendance is incomplete evidence.
When relevant: Article 4: providers and deployers in scope of the AI Act; AI literacy for staff and others operating on their behalf.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Reviewers need competence, time, evidence and the authority to change or stop a consequential action. Measure correction rather than counting approvals.
Collect: Reviewer test results; workload and response times; held actions; corrections and halt exercises.
When relevant: Article 14: high-risk provider oversight design. Article 26(2): high-risk deployer assignment of competent, trained and authorised oversight. Chapter III application dates and transitional rules matter.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Enforce least privilege and resource authorization outside agent-editable policy.
Evidence from the original item
Effect-path inventory, grants, and negative outcomes.
Accountable role
Platform, security, and data owners
T08 · Authority and least privilege
Authenticate the principal and check the actual action and resource before an effect. An authenticated tool call does not establish business authority.
Collect: Permission matrix; grant/revocation history; denied cross-tenant and expired-authority outcomes.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Prevent untrusted inputs, integrations and changed artifacts from bypassing security boundaries. The specified technical mechanism remains an implementation choice.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Define permitted sources, classifications, rights, freshness, tenant scope, and egress.
Evidence from the original item
Source register, access decisions, and data-flow records.
Accountable role
Platform, security, and data owners
T06 · Data purpose and source stewardship
Keep source provenance, permitted use and data quality traceable; additional lawful-basis and rights review is needed when personal data or protected material is involved.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Limit access and reuse to the authorised purpose and retain personal data only as justified. Test deletion and correction through caches, memory and derived records.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Gate admission and reuse; retain provenance, derivative lineage, revocation, and deletion policy.
Evidence from the original item
Admission records, lineage, quarantine and repair evidence.
Accountable role
Platform, security, and data owners
T10 · Memory, state and data accuracy
Trace persistent and derived state, prevent contamination from acquiring authority, and verify that repair reaches descendants. Privacy duties are conditional on personal data.
Collect: Memory provenance; state lineage; quarantine; corrected descendants; restore tests.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Limit access and reuse to the authorised purpose and retain personal data only as justified. Test deletion and correction through caches, memory and derived records.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
Prevent untrusted inputs, integrations and changed artifacts from bypassing security boundaries. The specified technical mechanism remains an implementation choice.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Define authorized utility, prohibited effects, adjudication, and external success criteria.
Evidence from the original item
Evaluation protocol and oracle validation.
Accountable role
Validation and business test owners
T11 · Fitness and representative evaluation
Evaluate utility, relevant failure modes and the deployment decision under declared conditions. A test score does not establish fitness outside those conditions.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Check external business state before asserting completion and reconcile uncertain effects. This is a proposed implementation of accuracy and evidence disciplines, not a universally mandated oracle design.
Collect: External postconditions; idempotency; state reconciliation; false-completion cases.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
Cover normal work, edge cases, missing data, accessibility, and relevant customer stages.
Evidence from the original item
Case register, sampling rationale, labels, and uncertainty.
Accountable role
Validation and business test owners
T11 · Fitness and representative evaluation
Evaluate utility, relevant failure modes and the deployment decision under declared conditions. A test score does not establish fitness outside those conditions.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Measure relevant cohort outcomes, burdens and exclusions across routing and intermediate actions as well as the final decision. Statistical disparity alone is not a complete legal conclusion.
When relevant: Article 10(2)(f)–(g): relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Creditors and covered credit decisions; notification procedures and exceptions vary by application and applicant.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Current §§1002.4 and 1002.9. Use the rule and its official interpretation; do not rely on withdrawn AI circulars.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary standard. Published management-system standard.
Only ISO’s public catalogue scope was inspected. All mappings are scope-level alignments; no paid clause text, Annex A conformity or certification verdict is claimed.
When relevant: Article 9: relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary guidance standard. Published guidance standard.
Public catalogue scope only. Scope-level alignment, not a verified clause-by-clause assessment.
Keep action, exposure and time limits outside agent-editable state, including retries and descendants. Proposed budget mechanisms support risk bounding; the sources do not prescribe universal numeric limits.
When relevant: Article 9: relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary guidance standard. Published guidance standard.
Public catalogue scope only. Scope-level alignment, not a verified clause-by-clause assessment.
Measure relevant cohort outcomes, burdens and exclusions across routing and intermediate actions as well as the final decision. Statistical disparity alone is not a complete legal conclusion.
When relevant: Article 10(2)(f)–(g): relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Creditors and covered credit decisions; notification procedures and exceptions vary by application and applicant.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Current §§1002.4 and 1002.9. Use the rule and its official interpretation; do not rely on withdrawn AI circulars.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary standard. Published management-system standard.
Only ISO’s public catalogue scope was inspected. All mappings are scope-level alignments; no paid clause text, Annex A conformity or certification verdict is claimed.
Reviewers need competence, time, evidence and the authority to change or stop a consequential action. Measure correction rather than counting approvals.
Collect: Reviewer test results; workload and response times; held actions; corrections and halt exercises.
When relevant: Article 14: high-risk provider oversight design. Article 26(2): high-risk deployer assignment of competent, trained and authorised oversight. Chapter III application dates and transitional rules matter.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Article 9: relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Organisational AI management or risk-management scope only. ISO public catalogue inspected; numbered clauses and conformity were not inspected.
Status and timing: Voluntary guidance standard. Published guidance standard.
Public catalogue scope only. Scope-level alignment, not a verified clause-by-clause assessment.
Keep action, exposure and time limits outside agent-editable state, including retries and descendants. Proposed budget mechanisms support risk bounding; the sources do not prescribe universal numeric limits.
Demonstrate operator and reviewer competence, workload capacity, and understanding of role limits.
Evidence from the original item
Training rubric, planted cases, staffing and burden evidence.
Accountable role
Business owner and enterprise risk
T05 · Training and end-user understanding
Demonstrate that operators, reviewers and affected users understand limitations and their responsibilities. Training attendance is incomplete evidence.
When relevant: Article 4: providers and deployers in scope of the AI Act; AI literacy for staff and others operating on their behalf.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Reviewers need competence, time, evidence and the authority to change or stop a consequential action. Measure correction rather than counting approvals.
Collect: Reviewer test results; workload and response times; held actions; corrections and halt exercises.
When relevant: Article 14: high-risk provider oversight design. Article 26(2): high-risk deployer assignment of competent, trained and authorised oversight. Chapter III application dates and transitional rules matter.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Developers/deployers of ADMT materially influencing specified consequential decisions; statutory exemptions require review.
Status and timing: Enacted law; future duties. Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Enforce least privilege and resource authorization outside agent-editable policy.
Evidence from the original item
Effect-path inventory, grants, and negative outcomes.
Accountable role
Platform, security, and data owners
T08 · Authority and least privilege
Authenticate the principal and check the actual action and resource before an effect. An authenticated tool call does not establish business authority.
Collect: Permission matrix; grant/revocation history; denied cross-tenant and expired-authority outcomes.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Prevent untrusted inputs, integrations and changed artifacts from bypassing security boundaries. The specified technical mechanism remains an implementation choice.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Define permitted sources, classifications, rights, freshness, tenant scope, and egress.
Evidence from the original item
Source register, access decisions, and data-flow records.
Accountable role
Platform, security, and data owners
T06 · Data purpose and source stewardship
Keep source provenance, permitted use and data quality traceable; additional lawful-basis and rights review is needed when personal data or protected material is involved.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Limit access and reuse to the authorised purpose and retain personal data only as justified. Test deletion and correction through caches, memory and derived records.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Gate admission and reuse; retain provenance, derivative lineage, revocation, and deletion policy.
Evidence from the original item
Admission records, lineage, quarantine and repair evidence.
Accountable role
Platform, security, and data owners
T10 · Memory, state and data accuracy
Trace persistent and derived state, prevent contamination from acquiring authority, and verify that repair reaches descendants. Privacy duties are conditional on personal data.
Collect: Memory provenance; state lineage; quarantine; corrected descendants; restore tests.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Limit access and reuse to the authorised purpose and retain personal data only as justified. Test deletion and correction through caches, memory and derived records.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
Prevent untrusted inputs, integrations and changed artifacts from bypassing security boundaries. The specified technical mechanism remains an implementation choice.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
When relevant: Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Status and timing: Binding law. Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
When relevant: Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Status and timing: Regulator guidance. Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Define authorized utility, prohibited effects, adjudication, and external success criteria.
Evidence from the original item
Evaluation protocol and oracle validation.
Accountable role
Validation and business test owners
T11 · Fitness and representative evaluation
Evaluate utility, relevant failure modes and the deployment decision under declared conditions. A test score does not establish fitness outside those conditions.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Check external business state before asserting completion and reconcile uncertain effects. This is a proposed implementation of accuracy and evidence disciplines, not a universally mandated oracle design.
Collect: External postconditions; idempotency; state reconciliation; false-completion cases.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
Cover normal work, edge cases, missing data, accessibility, and relevant customer stages.
Evidence from the original item
Case register, sampling rationale, labels, and uncertainty.
Accountable role
Validation and business test owners
T11 · Fitness and representative evaluation
Evaluate utility, relevant failure modes and the deployment decision under declared conditions. A test score does not establish fitness outside those conditions.
When relevant: High-risk AI system duties for the provider or other role named in the cited article. Establish classification, role, article-specific application date and transitional rules first.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Status and timing: Supervisory expectations. Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
When relevant: Domain analogy only: SR 26-2 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models. Assess conventional model components separately; this agent control is not claimed to be required by SR 26-2.
Status and timing: Supervisory guidance. Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Measure relevant cohort outcomes, burdens and exclusions across routing and intermediate actions as well as the final decision. Statistical disparity alone is not a complete legal conclusion.
When relevant: Article 10(2)(f)–(g): relevant high-risk provider duties. Article 27: specified deployers, including covered public-service and certain credit/insurance uses; an impact assessment is not required of every deployer.
Status and timing: Binding law. Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
When relevant: Creditors and covered credit decisions; notification procedures and exceptions vary by application and applicant.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Current §§1002.4 and 1002.9. Use the rule and its official interpretation; do not rely on withdrawn AI circulars.
When relevant: FCA firms and retail business in the Duty’s scope; account for position in the distribution chain.
Status and timing: Binding rules and guidance. Current rules apply to covered business. R paragraphs are rules; G paragraphs explain their application.
When relevant: CCPA businesses and covered processing; ADMT significant-decision definition, exemptions and opt-out exceptions are specific.
Status and timing: Binding regulation. Regulations effective 1 January 2026. Article 11 ADMT compliance: 1 January 2027. Article 10 risk assessments and cyber-audit schedules differ.
An appeal is one qualified opt-out exception; meaningful human involvement has a defined competence, analysis and authority test.
Reviewed 2 October 2026. Next monthly review due 1 November 2026. Monthly reference updates supplement this dated edition; they do not silently revise its legal map.
Commission consolidated-text explorer, 27 July 2026
Applies to
EU-market providers, deployers and other covered operators; classify intended use and role first.
Timing
Literacy/prohibitions: February 2025 (some new prohibitions December 2026); GPAI: August 2025; Article 50: August 2026; Annex III high-risk Chapter III duties: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028.
Interpretation limit
Article 27 covers specified deployers; Articles 53/55 cover model providers, not every user of a model. Other articles and transitional arrangements have their own dates. The explorer identifies July 2026 amendments; the linked Official Journal is controlling.
Official consolidated text: CELEX 02016R0679-20160504; reviewed 2 October 2026
Applies to
Personal-data processing within Articles 2/3; controller and processor duties differ.
Timing
Applicable since 25 May 2018. Article 22 concerns solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, subject to exceptions and safeguards.
Financial entities listed in Article 2; check exclusions, proportionality and the simplified framework.
Timing
Applicable since 17 January 2025; reporting classifications, clocks and templates also depend on delegated/implementing rules.
Interpretation limit
ICT resilience duties do not by themselves define fairness or AI conformity requirements. This map selects core articles, not every technical standard.
UK-incorporated banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms with internal-model capital approval; model definition and materiality still matter.
Timing
Policy began 17 May 2024; April 2026 revision inspected. Annual self-assessment expectations remain.
Interpretation limit
Branches, firms without internal-model approval, credit unions, insurers and reinsurers are outside the stated scope. For others these disciplines are an analogy, not a new agent-specific mandate.
Covered duties start 1 January 2027. Attorney General implementing rules were proposed in August 2026; proposals are not enacted requirements.
Interpretation limit
This entry maps the General Assembly’s official enacted summary by named duty, not numbered statutory clauses. It does not reuse the superseded SB24-205 impact-assessment regime.
Covered banking organisations and qualifying traditional statistical/quantitative and non-generative, non-agentic AI models.
Timing
Current guidance. Attachment footnote 3 explicitly excludes generative and agentic AI models.
Interpretation limit
Every agent mapping here is marked analogy. Relevant traditional model components can separately be in scope. Guidance does not establish enforceable standards.
Data users processing personal data with agents; underlying PDPO duties remain binding.
Timing
Current agent-specific supplement to the 2024 Model Framework.
Interpretation limit
Mappings cite the nine recommendations and checklist. DPP references explain the law discussed by the guidance; this column does not convert every recommendation into a statutory requirement.
Organisational AI management systems; contract or policy may make adoption an organisational obligation.
Timing
Published management-system standard.
Interpretation limit
Only ISO’s public catalogue scope was inspected. All mappings are scope-level alignments; no paid clause text, Annex A conformity or certification verdict is claimed.