AI TRANSPARENCY EVIDENCE · EU
What is publicly evidenced—and what remains open.
The monitor separates two legal lanes: transparency and copyright evidence for general-purpose AI under Article 53, and marking and disclosure signals for synthetic content under Article 50. It documents public evidence, not legal compliance.
- official and provider-owned sources
- two separate legal lanes
- no generative AI
12 Aug 2026↳ 22 Jul 2026
TWO LEGAL LANES · NO COMPOSITE SCORE
A signature is not a training-data disclosure.
Code participation, a published training-content summary, a copyright policy and technical marking are different facts. The monitor keeps them separate and does not label products or providers compliant.
General-purpose AI
- GPAI Code participation
- training-content summary
- public copyright policy
≠review separately
Synthetic content
- section-specific Code participation
- machine-readable marking
- visible disclosure
DYNAMIC EVIDENCE CONSTELLATION
One provider, two separate evidence orbits
Choose a provider. Every point is a defined public review slot. Diamonds represent official Code signals and circles provider-owned publications. Located, reviewed-but-unlocated, unreviewed and register-pending states remain visibly separate.
Choose a providerOpenAI
AI Act Art. 53
2/3GPAI transparency
AI Act Art. 50(2), (4) and (5)
1/2Synthetic content
- Article 50 Code signaturepublicly located · official evidence↗
- Marking and detection evidencenot yet reviewed · provider evidence
AI Act Art. 53 · GPAI transparency
- Public copyright policy: not yet reviewed · provider evidence
- GPAI Code signature: publicly located · official evidence
- Training-content summary: publicly located · provider evidence
AI Act Art. 50(2), (4) and (5) · Synthetic content
- Article 50 Code signature: publicly located · official evidence
- Marking and detection evidence: not yet reviewed · provider evidence
AI Act Art. 53 · GPAI transparency2/3 located
AI Act Art. 50(2), (4) and (5) · Synthetic content1/2 located
Open provider dossier →Clearly explained
What does this monitor measure?
It follows 24 organizations in a deliberately bounded corpus and records the state of defined public evidence at official EU and provider-owned sources. Located, reviewed-but-unlocated, not-yet-reviewed and official-register-pending slots remain separate. It does not assess legal compliance, model quality or the truth of provider claims.
Why are Articles 53 and 50 shown separately?
Article 53 concerns general-purpose AI models, including public training-content summaries and copyright-policy duties. Article 50 concerns AI systems and outputs, including machine-readable marking and visible disclosure. An organization-level Code signature cannot replace model- or output-level evidence.
How is “not yet reviewed” different from “not publicly located”?
“Not yet reviewed” makes no negative finding. “Not publicly located” is used only after the relevant monitored sources were actually checked and the defined artifact was not found at the recorded time. Neither state is a compliance assessment, and a required policy can exist internally without a publication duty.
Does Code participation prove compliance?
No. The Commission explicitly treats Code participation as a support mechanism, not conclusive proof of compliance. The monitor records section- or chapter-specific official status as one evidence type only.
How does the Article 50 lane handle the published signatory register?
The monitor follows the official register and preserves section-specific participation. A provider can sign Section 1, Section 2 or both.
Does the monitor use generative AI to classify providers?
No. Sources, identities, artifact types, coverage and changes follow deterministic rules and exact URLs.