# Rule set: does an AI Act obligation apply to this system?

slug: ruleset-eu-ai-act-obligation · https://miscsubjects.com/a/ruleset-eu-ai-act-obligation · category: adjudication · tags: ruleset, adjudication, evidence, external-statutory · updated 2026-07-30T00:29:41.901Z

A rule set is the load-bearing object in an adjudication, so it is published as an object: versioned, content-addressed, and citable by the exact hash a finding was made under. When these rules change, every prior finding stays legible against the rules it was actually made under.

## Provenance of these rules

Declared provenance: **external-statutory**. These rules restate the reading discipline for Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. The provision text adjudicated against is the Union's, not this operator's, which is what makes a finding under this rule set bind harder than one under self-authored rules.

A reader who does not trust this operator can price a finding by this field alone: rules written elsewhere bind harder than rules written by the party who benefits from the finding.

## Question

Under the cited provision of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act), does the stated obligation apply to the described system as characterised?

## Rules

1. Read only the provision text supplied. Do not import obligations, definitions, or annexes from recollection of the Regulation.
2. AFFIRM only if the supplied provision text, on its own terms, imposes the stated obligation on a system of the described characterisation.
3. DENY if the provision excludes the described system, addresses a different actor (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), or imposes a different obligation than the one stated.
4. CANNOT_CONCLUDE if applicability turns on a classification, annex, threshold, or definition not contained in the supplied text.
5. Distinguish the addressee. An obligation on providers is not an obligation on deployers.
6. Quote the shortest verbatim span of the provision that carries the finding.

## Permitted verdicts

`AFFIRM` · `DENY` · `CANNOT_CONCLUDE`. Abstention is first class: a panel that cannot conclude says so, and that recorded absence is itself evidence rather than a silent null.

## Content hash

The canonical form is the JSON object `{id, version, question, rules, verdicts}` with no whitespace. SHA-256:

`0dd9afef93503a92280c90869eaf6a5a13ee508b2ec3506045f1803bce1a4d3c`

Recompute it from the canonical form below and compare. A finding that names a different hash was made under different rules.

```json
{"id":"ruleset-eu-ai-act-obligation","version":"1.0.0","question":"Under the cited provision of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act), does the stated obligation apply to the described system as characterised?","rules":["Read only the provision text supplied. Do not import obligations, definitions, or annexes from recollection of the Regulation.","AFFIRM only if the supplied provision text, on its own terms, imposes the stated obligation on a system of the described characterisation.","DENY if the provision excludes the described system, addresses a different actor (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), or imposes a different obligation than the one stated.","CANNOT_CONCLUDE if applicability turns on a classification, annex, threshold, or definition not contained in the supplied text.","Distinguish the addressee. An obligation on providers is not an obligation on deployers.","Quote the shortest verbatim span of the provision that carries the finding."],"verdicts":["AFFIRM","DENY","CANNOT_CONCLUDE"]}
```

## How a finding under these rules is produced

Each adjudicator is a directory row driven through this system's own gateway. No code was deployed to add them and adding another model is one more row. Every finding records the model, the rule set hash, the quoted span, the exposure (`independent` when the adjudicator saw no other finding, `concurring` when it did), the ordering seed, and a signature. A mandatory recorded adversary argues the strongest honest case against the majority and is published whether it prevails or not.

Adjudicator rows: https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_KIMI · https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_GROK · https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_GLM · https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_LLAMA · https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_MINIMAX · adversary: https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_ADVERSARY · error-rate probe: https://miscsubjects.com/api/directory/ADJUDICATE_PROBE

## What a finding under these rules does and does not establish

It establishes that named adjudicators, under these exact rules at this exact hash, returned these findings on this claim against this source, with their exposure and ordering recorded — at a measured error rate when a probe report is attached.

It does not establish that the claim is true. No adjudication anywhere does that. A court, a journal and a clinical endpoint committee each declare rules, take findings from named parties under those rules, and preserve dissent. This is that structure, with the rule set pinned at a hash instead of scattered through case law.