bmad-plus 0.7.4 → 0.8.0

package/src/bmad-plus/packs/pack-shield/references/eu-ai-act/gpai-governance.md

@@ -1,267 +1,267 @@
-# EU AI Act — GPAI, Governance, and Cross-Framework Reference
-
-## GPAI Model Obligations
-
-### Art. 3(63) — What Qualifies as a GPAI Model
-
-A model qualifies as GPAI when **all** of the following apply:
-- Trained with **large amounts of data** using **self-supervision at scale**
-- Displays **significant generality** — competently performs a wide range of distinct tasks
-- Can be used for multiple **different purposes** regardless of how placed on market
-- **Excludes:** Models in pre-release R&D phase not yet placed on market
-
-**Key implication:** Many foundation models (large language models, multimodal models) are GPAI models. A system built on such a model may be a "GPAI system" (Art. 3(64)).
-
----
-
-### Art. 53 — Universal GPAI Provider Obligations (applies from 2 August 2025)
-
-ALL GPAI model providers (regardless of size or systemic risk status) must:
-
-**1. Technical Documentation (Annex XI content):**
-- General description: intended purpose, types of tasks, interaction modes
-- Development process: data sources, data processing and filtering, training techniques, compute used
-- Testing and evaluation: benchmarks, evaluations, safety testing results
-- Known limitations and foreseeable risks
-- Responsible disclosure practices; contact information for reporting issues
-- Keep up-to-date; provide to AI Office and national authorities on request
-
-**2. Downstream Provider Information (Annex XII content):**
-Document and make available to downstream AI system providers who integrate the GPAI model:
-- Capabilities and limitations enabling compliance with their own obligations
-- Integration instructions
-- Security measures
-- Evaluation results
-- **Note:** Intellectual property protections are permitted — Annex XII information may be provided under reasonable commercial terms
-
-**3. Copyright Compliance Policy (EU Directive 2019/790 Text and Data Mining):**
-- Implement a policy to comply with EU copyright and related rights law
-- Specifically: mechanisms to respect text and data mining opt-outs reserved by rights-holders under Art. 4(3) of Directive 2019/790
-- Must be technically enforceable and publicly described
-
-**4. Public Training Content Summary:**
-- Draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of training content
-- Must follow Commission-provided template
-- Purpose: enable downstream providers and the public to understand what data was used
-
-**Open-source / free-license exception:**
-GPAI model providers releasing under open-source/free licenses need only comply with obligations **3 and 4** (copyright policy and training summary) — **UNLESS** the model is later designated as having systemic risk, in which case full Art. 53 + Art. 55 obligations apply.
-
----
-
-### Art. 51 — Systemic Risk Classification
-
-**Automatic presumption of systemic risk when:**
-Training compute exceeds **10²⁵ FLOPs** (floating point operations, cumulative across all training runs)
-
-**Commission designation (independent of FLOPs threshold):**
-Commission may also designate a model as having systemic risk based on:
-- High-impact capabilities identified through model evaluation
-- Broad reach across the EU
-- Negative effects on public health, safety, public security, fundamental rights
-- Other criteria in Annex XIII (including parameter count, domain specificity, user base)
-
-**Provider notification obligation:**
-Providers that know or should reasonably know their model meets or is approaching the threshold must:
-- Notify the **AI Office** within **2 weeks** of reaching the threshold
-- Notification triggers systemic risk assessment dialogue
-
-**Dynamic threshold:**
-Commission may amend the 10²⁵ FLOPs threshold via delegated acts as AI capabilities evolve.
-
-**Rebuttable presumption:**
-Providers may present evidence demonstrating systemic risk does not apply despite meeting the FLOPs threshold.
-
----
-
-### Art. 55 — Systemic Risk GPAI Provider Additional Obligations (applies from 2 August 2025)
-
-In addition to Art. 53 universal obligations, providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must:
-
-**1. Model Evaluation:**
-- Conduct model evaluation according to standardised protocols and state-of-the-art tools
-- Includes adversarial testing (red-teaming) to identify and mitigate systemic risks
-- May be conducted in cooperation with the AI Office
-
-**2. Risk Assessment and Mitigation:**
-- Assess and mitigate possible systemic risks arising from development, market placement, or deployment
-- Systemic risks include: actual or foreseeable negative effects on public health, safety, public security, or fundamental rights at Union level, including serious societal disturbances
-
-**3. Serious Incident Reporting:**
-- Track, document, and promptly report any serious incidents and possible corrective actions
-- Report to: **AI Office** and relevant **national competent authorities**
-- Report without undue delay upon becoming aware
-
-**4. Cybersecurity:**
-- Ensure adequate cybersecurity protection for the model, its physical infrastructure, and the supply chain
-- Includes protection against model theft, unauthorized access, adversarial attacks on model weights
-
-**Compliance pathways for GPAI obligations:**
-1. **Codes of Practice** — voluntary, developed with AI Office involvement; interim compliance pathway
-2. **Harmonised standards** — when published under Commission mandate; compliance gives presumption of conformity
-3. **Alternative adequate means** — provider demonstrates compliance through other methods acceptable to Commission
-
----
-
-## Governance Structure
-
-### AI Office (Arts. 64–68)
-
-- Established within the **European Commission** (not an independent agency)
-- Primary responsibility for: GPAI model oversight, monitoring, compliance assessment
-- Conducts GPAI model evaluations — both compliance assessments and systemic risk investigations
-- May request access to model weights, source code, training procedures, technical documentation
-- Receives complaints from downstream providers against upstream GPAI providers
-- Provides secretariat support for the AI Board
-- Key contact point for: systemic risk notifications, Codes of Practice development, serious incident reports from GPAI providers
-- Issues non-binding guidance; makes recommendations to the Commission
-
-### European Artificial Intelligence Board — AI Board (Art. 65)
-
-**Composition:**
-- One representative per EU Member State (3-year renewable mandate)
-- European Data Protection Supervisor: permanent observer
-- AI Office representative: attends, no voting rights
-- Other national/Union authorities: invited case-by-case
-
-**Governance:**
-- Elects Chair from Member State representatives
-- Adopts rules of procedure by two-thirds majority
-- Two standing sub-groups: (i) market surveillance authorities; (ii) notifying authorities
-
-**Core tasks:**
-- Advise and assist Commission and Member States on consistent AI Act implementation
-- Issue opinions, recommendations, and guidance on matters affecting multiple Member States
-- Coordinate and facilitate information exchange between national authorities
-- Facilitate development of harmonised technical standards
-- Provide opinions on common specifications
-
-### National Competent Authorities
-
-Each Member State designates one or more national competent authorities with powers covering:
-- **Market surveillance** (Art. 74): access to documentation, testing datasets, source code
-- **Conformity assessment oversight**: notified body designation and monitoring
-- **Enforcement and investigation**: power to require corrective action, withdrawal, recalls, fines
-- **Annual reporting** to Commission on prohibited practices and enforcement actions
-
-**Sector-specific authorities:**
-- Financial supervisors for AI in banking and insurance
-- Data protection authorities for law enforcement AI applications
-- European Data Protection Supervisor for EU institutions' AI systems (Art. 77)
-
-### Scientific Panel (Arts. 68–70)
-
-- Independent expert body for GPAI matters
-- Can alert AI Office about high-impact GPAI capabilities that may qualify for systemic risk designation
-- Provides technical opinions to AI Office and Commission
-- Issues views on model evaluation methodologies and capabilities assessment
-
-### AI Regulatory Sandboxes (Art. 57)
-
-- At least one operational per Member State by 2 August 2026
-- Enable controlled testing of innovative AI systems under regulatory supervision before market placement
-- Participants: reduced administrative burden; authorities: supervisory insight
-- Participation does not provide automatic compliance certification
-
----
-
-## Post-Market Monitoring and Incident Reporting
-
-### Art. 72 — Post-Market Monitoring System
-
-**Applies to:** All high-risk AI system providers.
-
-**Requirements:**
-- Establish and document a post-market monitoring system proportionate to the nature of the AI technology and the risk
-- Continuously collect, document, and analyze relevant performance data from deployed systems throughout the operational lifetime
-- Monitor for risks to health, safety, and fundamental rights
-- Inform risk management system updates (Art. 9)
-- Must form part of technical documentation (Art. 11)
-
-**Commission template:** Commission must publish a standardised template for post-market monitoring plans by 2 February 2026.
-
-**Integration:** Existing post-market monitoring systems under sectoral legislation (medical devices, machinery, etc.) may be adapted and integrated to avoid duplication.
-
-### Art. 73 — Serious Incident Reporting
-
-**What constitutes a serious incident:**
-Any incident or malfunctioning of a high-risk AI system that directly or indirectly leads or could lead to:
-- Death of a person or serious damage to health of a person
-- Serious and irreversible disruption to management/operation of critical infrastructure
-- Infringement of obligations under Union law protecting fundamental rights
-- Serious damage to property or the environment
-
-**Who reports:**
-- **Providers:** Report to market surveillance authority of Member State where incident occurred; within timeframe proportionate to severity (immediately for death-related incidents; within 15 days for other serious incidents; within 2 days for widespread safety threats)
-- **Deployers:** Immediately notify provider, importer/distributor, AND market surveillance authority
-- **GPAI systemic risk providers:** Report to AI Office and relevant national authorities
-
----
-
-## Cross-Framework Mapping
-
-### ISO 42001:2023 (AI Management System)
-
-ISO 42001 is the primary AI management system standard complementing AI Act compliance.
-
-| AI Act Article | ISO 42001 Element |
-|---------------|-------------------|
-| Art. 9 (Risk Management) | Clause 6.1, Annex A.6 (AI risk assessment), Annex B.3 |
-| Art. 10 (Data Governance) | Clause 8.4, Annex A.8 (AI system operation), A.7 (AI data management) |
-| Art. 13 (Transparency) | Annex A.4.1 (intended purpose documentation), A.4.2 |
-| Art. 14 (Human Oversight) | Annex A.9.3, A.10.1 (human factors in AI) |
-| Art. 15 (Accuracy/Robustness) | Annex A.9.4 (AI system performance), B.5 |
-| Art. 17 (QMS) | Clause 4–10 PDCA management system structure |
-| Art. 72 (Post-Market Monitoring) | Clause 9.1 (performance evaluation), A.10.3 |
-| Art. 73 (Incident Reporting) | Annex A.10.5 (adverse impacts), Clause 10.2 |
-
-**Practical guidance:** ISO 42001 certification can support demonstration of Art. 17 QMS compliance. ISO 42001's Statement of Applicability (SoA) process may be adapted for mapping conformity with AI Act requirements.
-
-### NIST AI RMF (AI Risk Management Framework 1.0)
-
-| AI Act Obligation | NIST AI RMF Function/Category |
-|------------------|-------------------------------|
-| Art. 17 QMS | GOVERN 1 (Policies, processes, accountability) |
-| Art. 6 classification | MAP 1 (Context establishment), MAP 2 (Risk identification) |
-| Art. 9 risk management | MAP 3, MEASURE 1–2 |
-| Art. 10 data governance | MEASURE 2.5, 2.6 (Data and bias evaluation) |
-| Art. 15 accuracy/robustness | MEASURE 2.1–2.4 (Testing, evaluation, red-teaming) |
-| Art. 14 human oversight | MANAGE 2 (Human-AI interaction), GOVERN 4 |
-| Art. 72 post-market monitoring | MANAGE 3, MANAGE 4 (Post-deployment operations) |
-| Art. 73 incident reporting | MANAGE 4.1–4.2 (Incident response) |
-
-### GDPR Alignment
-
-The AI Act operates concurrently with GDPR — both apply when AI systems process personal data.
-
-| Intersection | AI Act | GDPR |
-|-------------|--------|------|
-| Data governance | Art. 10 | Art. 5 (data quality principles), Art. 25 (data protection by design) |
-| DPIA requirement | Art. 26 (deployer obligation reference) | Art. 35 |
-| Special category data | Art. 10(5) (bias detection) | Art. 9 |
-| Profiling definition | Art. 3(52) (matches precisely) | Art. 4(4) |
-| Transparency to users | Art. 50 | Art. 13/14 (information notices) |
-| Fundamental rights impact | Art. 27 (FRIA for public authorities) | Art. 35 DPIA |
-| RBI system authorisation | Art. 5(1)(h) | Art. 9 + law enforcement exemptions |
-| Supervisory authorities | Art. 77 (DPAs have access rights) | Supervisory authority under Chapter VI |
-| Enforcement | Art. 99 (AI Act fines) | Art. 83 (GDPR fines up to 4% global turnover) |
-
-**Key distinction:** GDPR governs personal data processing; the AI Act governs AI system development and deployment. Many AI systems trigger obligations under both — operators need dual compliance programmes.
-
----
-
-## Penalties Reference — Art. 99
-
-| Violation Type | Maximum Fine |
-|----------------|--------------|
-| **Prohibited AI practices** (Art. 5 violations) | €35,000,000 or **7%** of total worldwide annual turnover (higher applies) |
-| **Provider/deployer/notified body violations** (Arts. 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 50) | €15,000,000 or **3%** of total worldwide annual turnover (higher applies) |
-| **Incorrect/misleading information** to notified bodies or competent authorities | €7,500,000 or **1%** of total worldwide annual turnover (higher applies) |
-
-**SME / startup reduction:** For SMEs and startups, the lower of the fixed amount or percentage applies (Art. 99(6)).
-
-**Proportionality factors:** Nature, gravity, and duration; prior infringements; company size and market share; intentionality; cooperation level; mitigation measures taken; actual damage caused.
-
-**Member State reporting:** Annual reporting obligation to Commission on fines issued.
-
-**GPAI enforcement:** AI Office enforces GPAI obligations. For systemic risk GPAI models, Commission itself may conduct investigations and impose fines directly.
+# EU AI Act — GPAI, Governance, and Cross-Framework Reference
+
+## GPAI Model Obligations
+
+### Art. 3(63) — What Qualifies as a GPAI Model
+
+A model qualifies as GPAI when **all** of the following apply:
+- Trained with **large amounts of data** using **self-supervision at scale**
+- Displays **significant generality** — competently performs a wide range of distinct tasks
+- Can be used for multiple **different purposes** regardless of how placed on market
+- **Excludes:** Models in pre-release R&D phase not yet placed on market
+
+**Key implication:** Many foundation models (large language models, multimodal models) are GPAI models. A system built on such a model may be a "GPAI system" (Art. 3(64)).
+
+---
+
+### Art. 53 — Universal GPAI Provider Obligations (applies from 2 August 2025)
+
+ALL GPAI model providers (regardless of size or systemic risk status) must:
+
+**1. Technical Documentation (Annex XI content):**
+- General description: intended purpose, types of tasks, interaction modes
+- Development process: data sources, data processing and filtering, training techniques, compute used
+- Testing and evaluation: benchmarks, evaluations, safety testing results
+- Known limitations and foreseeable risks
+- Responsible disclosure practices; contact information for reporting issues
+- Keep up-to-date; provide to AI Office and national authorities on request
+
+**2. Downstream Provider Information (Annex XII content):**
+Document and make available to downstream AI system providers who integrate the GPAI model:
+- Capabilities and limitations enabling compliance with their own obligations
+- Integration instructions
+- Security measures
+- Evaluation results
+- **Note:** Intellectual property protections are permitted — Annex XII information may be provided under reasonable commercial terms
+
+**3. Copyright Compliance Policy (EU Directive 2019/790 Text and Data Mining):**
+- Implement a policy to comply with EU copyright and related rights law
+- Specifically: mechanisms to respect text and data mining opt-outs reserved by rights-holders under Art. 4(3) of Directive 2019/790
+- Must be technically enforceable and publicly described
+
+**4. Public Training Content Summary:**
+- Draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of training content
+- Must follow Commission-provided template
+- Purpose: enable downstream providers and the public to understand what data was used
+
+**Open-source / free-license exception:**
+GPAI model providers releasing under open-source/free licenses need only comply with obligations **3 and 4** (copyright policy and training summary) — **UNLESS** the model is later designated as having systemic risk, in which case full Art. 53 + Art. 55 obligations apply.
+
+---
+
+### Art. 51 — Systemic Risk Classification
+
+**Automatic presumption of systemic risk when:**
+Training compute exceeds **10²⁵ FLOPs** (floating point operations, cumulative across all training runs)
+
+**Commission designation (independent of FLOPs threshold):**
+Commission may also designate a model as having systemic risk based on:
+- High-impact capabilities identified through model evaluation
+- Broad reach across the EU
+- Negative effects on public health, safety, public security, fundamental rights
+- Other criteria in Annex XIII (including parameter count, domain specificity, user base)
+
+**Provider notification obligation:**
+Providers that know or should reasonably know their model meets or is approaching the threshold must:
+- Notify the **AI Office** within **2 weeks** of reaching the threshold
+- Notification triggers systemic risk assessment dialogue
+
+**Dynamic threshold:**
+Commission may amend the 10²⁵ FLOPs threshold via delegated acts as AI capabilities evolve.
+
+**Rebuttable presumption:**
+Providers may present evidence demonstrating systemic risk does not apply despite meeting the FLOPs threshold.
+
+---
+
+### Art. 55 — Systemic Risk GPAI Provider Additional Obligations (applies from 2 August 2025)
+
+In addition to Art. 53 universal obligations, providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must:
+
+**1. Model Evaluation:**
+- Conduct model evaluation according to standardised protocols and state-of-the-art tools
+- Includes adversarial testing (red-teaming) to identify and mitigate systemic risks
+- May be conducted in cooperation with the AI Office
+
+**2. Risk Assessment and Mitigation:**
+- Assess and mitigate possible systemic risks arising from development, market placement, or deployment
+- Systemic risks include: actual or foreseeable negative effects on public health, safety, public security, or fundamental rights at Union level, including serious societal disturbances
+
+**3. Serious Incident Reporting:**
+- Track, document, and promptly report any serious incidents and possible corrective actions
+- Report to: **AI Office** and relevant **national competent authorities**
+- Report without undue delay upon becoming aware
+
+**4. Cybersecurity:**
+- Ensure adequate cybersecurity protection for the model, its physical infrastructure, and the supply chain
+- Includes protection against model theft, unauthorized access, adversarial attacks on model weights
+
+**Compliance pathways for GPAI obligations:**
+1. **Codes of Practice** — voluntary, developed with AI Office involvement; interim compliance pathway
+2. **Harmonised standards** — when published under Commission mandate; compliance gives presumption of conformity
+3. **Alternative adequate means** — provider demonstrates compliance through other methods acceptable to Commission
+
+---
+
+## Governance Structure
+
+### AI Office (Arts. 64–68)
+
+- Established within the **European Commission** (not an independent agency)
+- Primary responsibility for: GPAI model oversight, monitoring, compliance assessment
+- Conducts GPAI model evaluations — both compliance assessments and systemic risk investigations
+- May request access to model weights, source code, training procedures, technical documentation
+- Receives complaints from downstream providers against upstream GPAI providers
+- Provides secretariat support for the AI Board
+- Key contact point for: systemic risk notifications, Codes of Practice development, serious incident reports from GPAI providers
+- Issues non-binding guidance; makes recommendations to the Commission
+
+### European Artificial Intelligence Board — AI Board (Art. 65)
+
+**Composition:**
+- One representative per EU Member State (3-year renewable mandate)
+- European Data Protection Supervisor: permanent observer
+- AI Office representative: attends, no voting rights
+- Other national/Union authorities: invited case-by-case
+
+**Governance:**
+- Elects Chair from Member State representatives
+- Adopts rules of procedure by two-thirds majority
+- Two standing sub-groups: (i) market surveillance authorities; (ii) notifying authorities
+
+**Core tasks:**
+- Advise and assist Commission and Member States on consistent AI Act implementation
+- Issue opinions, recommendations, and guidance on matters affecting multiple Member States
+- Coordinate and facilitate information exchange between national authorities
+- Facilitate development of harmonised technical standards
+- Provide opinions on common specifications
+
+### National Competent Authorities
+
+Each Member State designates one or more national competent authorities with powers covering:
+- **Market surveillance** (Art. 74): access to documentation, testing datasets, source code
+- **Conformity assessment oversight**: notified body designation and monitoring
+- **Enforcement and investigation**: power to require corrective action, withdrawal, recalls, fines
+- **Annual reporting** to Commission on prohibited practices and enforcement actions
+
+**Sector-specific authorities:**
+- Financial supervisors for AI in banking and insurance
+- Data protection authorities for law enforcement AI applications
+- European Data Protection Supervisor for EU institutions' AI systems (Art. 77)
+
+### Scientific Panel (Arts. 68–70)
+
+- Independent expert body for GPAI matters
+- Can alert AI Office about high-impact GPAI capabilities that may qualify for systemic risk designation
+- Provides technical opinions to AI Office and Commission
+- Issues views on model evaluation methodologies and capabilities assessment
+
+### AI Regulatory Sandboxes (Art. 57)
+
+- At least one operational per Member State by 2 August 2026
+- Enable controlled testing of innovative AI systems under regulatory supervision before market placement
+- Participants: reduced administrative burden; authorities: supervisory insight
+- Participation does not provide automatic compliance certification
+
+---
+
+## Post-Market Monitoring and Incident Reporting
+
+### Art. 72 — Post-Market Monitoring System
+
+**Applies to:** All high-risk AI system providers.
+
+**Requirements:**
+- Establish and document a post-market monitoring system proportionate to the nature of the AI technology and the risk
+- Continuously collect, document, and analyze relevant performance data from deployed systems throughout the operational lifetime
+- Monitor for risks to health, safety, and fundamental rights
+- Inform risk management system updates (Art. 9)
+- Must form part of technical documentation (Art. 11)
+
+**Commission template:** Commission must publish a standardised template for post-market monitoring plans by 2 February 2026.
+
+**Integration:** Existing post-market monitoring systems under sectoral legislation (medical devices, machinery, etc.) may be adapted and integrated to avoid duplication.
+
+### Art. 73 — Serious Incident Reporting
+
+**What constitutes a serious incident:**
+Any incident or malfunctioning of a high-risk AI system that directly or indirectly leads or could lead to:
+- Death of a person or serious damage to health of a person
+- Serious and irreversible disruption to management/operation of critical infrastructure
+- Infringement of obligations under Union law protecting fundamental rights
+- Serious damage to property or the environment
+
+**Who reports:**
+- **Providers:** Report to market surveillance authority of Member State where incident occurred; within timeframe proportionate to severity (immediately for death-related incidents; within 15 days for other serious incidents; within 2 days for widespread safety threats)
+- **Deployers:** Immediately notify provider, importer/distributor, AND market surveillance authority
+- **GPAI systemic risk providers:** Report to AI Office and relevant national authorities
+
+---
+
+## Cross-Framework Mapping
+
+### ISO 42001:2023 (AI Management System)
+
+ISO 42001 is the primary AI management system standard complementing AI Act compliance.
+
+| AI Act Article | ISO 42001 Element |
+|---------------|-------------------|
+| Art. 9 (Risk Management) | Clause 6.1, Annex A.6 (AI risk assessment), Annex B.3 |
+| Art. 10 (Data Governance) | Clause 8.4, Annex A.8 (AI system operation), A.7 (AI data management) |
+| Art. 13 (Transparency) | Annex A.4.1 (intended purpose documentation), A.4.2 |
+| Art. 14 (Human Oversight) | Annex A.9.3, A.10.1 (human factors in AI) |
+| Art. 15 (Accuracy/Robustness) | Annex A.9.4 (AI system performance), B.5 |
+| Art. 17 (QMS) | Clause 4–10 PDCA management system structure |
+| Art. 72 (Post-Market Monitoring) | Clause 9.1 (performance evaluation), A.10.3 |
+| Art. 73 (Incident Reporting) | Annex A.10.5 (adverse impacts), Clause 10.2 |
+
+**Practical guidance:** ISO 42001 certification can support demonstration of Art. 17 QMS compliance. ISO 42001's Statement of Applicability (SoA) process may be adapted for mapping conformity with AI Act requirements.
+
+### NIST AI RMF (AI Risk Management Framework 1.0)
+
+| AI Act Obligation | NIST AI RMF Function/Category |
+|------------------|-------------------------------|
+| Art. 17 QMS | GOVERN 1 (Policies, processes, accountability) |
+| Art. 6 classification | MAP 1 (Context establishment), MAP 2 (Risk identification) |
+| Art. 9 risk management | MAP 3, MEASURE 1–2 |
+| Art. 10 data governance | MEASURE 2.5, 2.6 (Data and bias evaluation) |
+| Art. 15 accuracy/robustness | MEASURE 2.1–2.4 (Testing, evaluation, red-teaming) |
+| Art. 14 human oversight | MANAGE 2 (Human-AI interaction), GOVERN 4 |
+| Art. 72 post-market monitoring | MANAGE 3, MANAGE 4 (Post-deployment operations) |
+| Art. 73 incident reporting | MANAGE 4.1–4.2 (Incident response) |
+
+### GDPR Alignment
+
+The AI Act operates concurrently with GDPR — both apply when AI systems process personal data.
+
+| Intersection | AI Act | GDPR |
+|-------------|--------|------|
+| Data governance | Art. 10 | Art. 5 (data quality principles), Art. 25 (data protection by design) |
+| DPIA requirement | Art. 26 (deployer obligation reference) | Art. 35 |
+| Special category data | Art. 10(5) (bias detection) | Art. 9 |
+| Profiling definition | Art. 3(52) (matches precisely) | Art. 4(4) |
+| Transparency to users | Art. 50 | Art. 13/14 (information notices) |
+| Fundamental rights impact | Art. 27 (FRIA for public authorities) | Art. 35 DPIA |
+| RBI system authorisation | Art. 5(1)(h) | Art. 9 + law enforcement exemptions |
+| Supervisory authorities | Art. 77 (DPAs have access rights) | Supervisory authority under Chapter VI |
+| Enforcement | Art. 99 (AI Act fines) | Art. 83 (GDPR fines up to 4% global turnover) |
+
+**Key distinction:** GDPR governs personal data processing; the AI Act governs AI system development and deployment. Many AI systems trigger obligations under both — operators need dual compliance programmes.
+
+---
+
+## Penalties Reference — Art. 99
+
+| Violation Type | Maximum Fine |
+|----------------|--------------|
+| **Prohibited AI practices** (Art. 5 violations) | €35,000,000 or **7%** of total worldwide annual turnover (higher applies) |
+| **Provider/deployer/notified body violations** (Arts. 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 50) | €15,000,000 or **3%** of total worldwide annual turnover (higher applies) |
+| **Incorrect/misleading information** to notified bodies or competent authorities | €7,500,000 or **1%** of total worldwide annual turnover (higher applies) |
+
+**SME / startup reduction:** For SMEs and startups, the lower of the fixed amount or percentage applies (Art. 99(6)).
+
+**Proportionality factors:** Nature, gravity, and duration; prior infringements; company size and market share; intentionality; cooperation level; mitigation measures taken; actual damage caused.
+
+**Member State reporting:** Annual reporting obligation to Commission on fines issued.
+
+**GPAI enforcement:** AI Office enforces GPAI obligations. For systemic risk GPAI models, Commission itself may conduct investigations and impose fines directly.