# Korea's AI framework act requires operators of high-impact AI to write and retain documents evidencing their safety measures, and to run a plan for explaining the system's criteria and training data

Page: https://flyvolo.ai/en/changes/ev-20260721-technical-writer-2
Date: 2026-07-21 · Stage: Policy mandate
Can this record move a task judgement? only together with another independent record
Occupation: https://flyvolo.ai/en/careers/technical-writer

## Scope

Read article by article on the Ministry of Government Legislation's portal, in the version in force from 21 July 2026. Two sub-paragraphs of Article 34(1) bear on this occupation and they do different things. Sub-paragraph 2 requires the operator to establish and implement a plan for explaining — so far as technically possible — the final result the AI produced, the main criteria used to reach it, and an outline of the training data used to develop and operate it. Sub-paragraph 5 requires the writing and retention of documents by which the content of the safety and reliability measures can be verified. The first governs what a reference has to cover; the second removes the discretion to leave something out. Article 36(1)(3) then makes the point about maintenance rather than authorship: a foreign operator above user or revenue thresholds must appoint a domestic representative whose duties include supporting compliance with Article 34(1), expressly including checking those documents for currency and accuracy. Two limits. The act leaves the detail to Presidential Decree and to a ministerial notice, and Article 34(2) says the minister may recommend compliance with that notice — so the specificity of what must be written is not fixed by this record. And it binds only operators of high-impact AI in Korea; nothing here counts a technical writer, a document or an hour.

## Source

- 국가법령정보센터 (Korea Ministry of Government Legislation) — 인공지능 발전과 신뢰 기반 조성 등에 관한 기본법 제34조·제36조 — https://www.law.go.kr/법령/인공지능발전과신뢰기반조성등에관한기본법/제34조 (primary source)

## What this means

Documentation stops being something a team writes if it has time. For high-impact AI in Korea, a document that lets someone verify the safety measures must be written and kept, and a plan must exist for explaining the system's output, the main criteria behind it, and what it was trained on. The maintenance half is the unusual part: where the operator is foreign and large enough, the domestic representative's duties expressly include checking those documents are current and accurate. Someone is named to notice when the reference goes stale.

## What it does not show yet

A duty, not a practice, and not a job. Nobody is counted here — no technical writer hired, no document produced, no check performed. How detailed the writing must be is left to a Presidential Decree and a ministerial notice, and the act says the minister may recommend compliance with that notice rather than compel it, so the standard this record points at does not yet have an edge. It reaches only operators of high-impact AI in Korea, which is a narrow slice of the work this occupation does.

## How to verify it yourself

Find out whether anyone in your organisation is responsible for noticing that a document has gone out of date — not for writing it, for noticing. Korea wrote that role into the act because it does not happen by itself. If the answer where you work is that the document is accurate until someone complains, you already know what the reference is worth in an audit.


More: https://flyvolo.ai/llms.txt