Art.40 provides that a high-risk AI system or general-purpose AI model in conformity with harmonised standards whose references are published in the Official Journal is presumed to conform with the corresponding requirements, and directs the Commission's standardisation requests. Art.42 provides a presumption of conformity with the Art.10(4) data governance requirement for systems trained on data reflecting the specific geographical, behavioural, contextual or functional setting of intended use, and with the Art.15 cybersecurity requirement for systems certified under Regulation (EU) 2019/881. Both operate in the operator's favour rather than imposing anything. The one duty in the former Art.40-42 bundle, the Art.41(5) obligation to justify equivalent technical solutions where common specifications are not followed, is now carried at EUAI-Art.41.
EU AI Act EUAI-Art.40-42 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of EU AI Act your existing evidence covers. Hold ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and 17 of 43 EU AI Act controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.