A new supporting layer is now available: "Article 50 Transparency Implementation Briefs v0.1"
This is not a new compliance claim.
It is a pair of short technical notes derived from my earlier "Article 50 Transparency Submission Pack v0.1".
The purpose is narrower:
to make AI transparency easier to inspect.
For policy readers, the core pattern is:
system boundary -> actor role -> obligation trigger -> disclosure or marking control -> evidence artifact -> responsible actor -> correction or review route
For engineers, the corresponding control surface is:
AI-assisted workflow -> task contract -> permission scope -> sandbox / worktree boundary -> witness event -> provenance sidecar -> human review -> human gate -> release / rejection -> rollback / correction route
This matters because AI systems are no longer only chat interfaces.
They can create files, modify repositories, generate metadata, prepare releases, call tools, and shape public or operational artifacts.
So the question is not only:
“Was AI used?”
It is also:
What was the system? Who had the role? What triggered the obligation? What control was applied? What evidence remains? Who reviewed it? Who is responsible? How can it be corrected or rolled back?
A label alone is not enough.
Metadata alone is not enough.
A log alone is not enough.
A human-review checkbox is not enough if no responsible actor is named.
The implementation briefs are intentionally short:
- "For AI Office / Policy Reader"
Article 50 transparency as an evidence chain.
- "For Engineers"
CGAM, witness events, oracle degradation, human gates, and rollback paths.
Boundary:
Not legal advice. Not certification. Not a conformity assessment. Not a formal Article 50 compliance claim. Formal compliance remains deployment-specific and subject to legal review.
DOI: https://zenodo.org/records/20784845
Derived from: https://zenodo.org/records/20315439
Website: https://ivankotov.eu/publications/article50-transparency-implementation-briefs-v0-1/