A deployer must, at the request of an affected person who has been subject to a decision the deployer took on the basis of the output of an Annex III high-risk AI system other than one listed under Annex III point 2, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights, provide clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken. The duty does not apply where Union or national law provides an exception or restriction, and applies only to the extent the right is not otherwise provided for under Union law.
This control maps to 12 controls across 7 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
EU AI Act EUAI-Art.86 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 12 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.