EU AI Act Article 55(1)(c) - Serious-incident tracking, documentation and reporting for systemic-risk GPAI
Track, document and report serious incidents and possible corrective measures without undue delay under Article 55(1)(c)
Where this comes from
Provision: Article 55(1)(c) - Serious-incident tracking, documentation and reporting for systemic-risk GPAI
Instrument: EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)
Citation: Article 55(1)(c), Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
Text version: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, consolidated 27 July 2026; original OJ L 12 July 2024 and amendment (EU) 2026/1744
Checked against the source: 6 September 2026
Who it applies to
GPAI model provider in scope (Art. 2, Art. 3(63)) — all of these:
- Project involves providing a general-purpose AI model (GPAI)
- GPAI assessed Union model scope: YES
- GPAI assessed Article 51 classification: YES
What engineering work it implies
- AI Decision Logging (Append-Only Decision Record)Foundation only
Append-only, tamper-evident log of every AI-assisted decision: model and version, hashed inputs, output, confidence, human-override flag, and an enforced retention floor.
Sample acceptance criteria Landfall generates for this obligation:
- Document the Article 3(49) serious-incident assessment and relevant information and possible corrective measures
- Report without undue delay to the AI Office and, as appropriate, national competent authorities under Article 55(1)(c)
- Preserve awareness, assessment and reporting times, recipients and the applicable reporting instrument
- Record the model-provider scope, relevant model version and Article 111(3) placement-date transition before an enforcement conclusion
- An internal near-miss log is distinguished from the statutory serious-incident report
Evidence an auditor expects
- Process recordDocument review
Serious-incident reporting chronology (Article 55(1)(c))
Document the Article 3(49) assessment, relevant facts and possible corrective measures, awareness times and evidence of reporting without undue delay to the AI Office and, as appropriate, national competent authorities. Record the specific applicable reporting instrument; do not substitute a universal near-miss or fixed-hours rule.
- Policy documentDocument review
GPAI incident handling procedure
Identify detection, triage, escalation and reporting responsibilities. Distinguish internal near-miss tracking from serious-incident reporting. Choose a justified retention policy with its actor-specific legal basis and data-minimisation rationale.
Questions people ask
- Does EU AI Act Article 55(1)(c) - Serious-incident tracking, documentation and rep… apply to my service?
- It applies when Project involves providing a general-purpose AI model (GPAI); GPAI assessed Union model scope: YES; GPAI assessed Article 51 classification: YES.
- When does this become enforceable?
- EU AI Act Article 55(1)(c) - Serious-incident tracking, documentation and rep… is enforceable from 2 August 2025. Its current status is: in force.
- What evidence does an auditor expect?
- Serious-incident reporting chronology (Article 55(1)(c)); GPAI incident handling procedure.
Find out whether this one lands on you
Landfall's pre-scan answers the applicability question above for your product in minutes, then turns every obligation that applies into traceable engineering tickets with a citation chain your auditors can follow.
Not legal advice. Landfall maps regulatory obligations to engineering work for planning purposes. Its verdicts are not legal advice and create no attorney-client relationship — verify with qualified counsel before relying on them.