LO
Policy mandateProcess & self-service2024-08-01
The EU AI Act requires deployers of high-risk AI systems to assign human oversight to natural persons with the necessary competence, training, authority and support (Article 26), from 2 December 2027
AI implementation leadoccupation page →
Event date / reported
2024-08-01 · reported 2026-07-27
Evidence stage
Policy mandateRegulation, subsidy or public procurement is requiring or funding adoption — the mirror of a constraint. It shows adoption is being required, not that it has happened, so one mandate is never enough on its own; two independent ones are.
Tasks this bears on
Deciding what it may do unsupervised
Writing down which actions the system takes alone, which need a person, what it must never send, and what happens when it is unsure.
Still human-led✓ Evidence-backed
Being there when it gets something wrong
Working out what happened, telling whoever was affected, deciding whether to switch it off, and saying what changes so it does not happen the same way twice.
Still human-led✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
The EU, and only for deployers of high-risk AI systems — the companies that buy and use them, not the providers that build them. What it establishes is that giving a specific person the competence, training, authority and support to oversee such a system is a legal obligation in the EU rather than a management choice; Article 26 also requires deployers to monitor operation and, on finding a risk, to inform the provider and the market surveillance authority. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (the Digital Omnibus on AI, published 24 July 2026) moved the application of these obligations from 2 August 2026 to 2 December 2027 for systems that are high-risk under Annex III, and to 2 August 2028 for those that are high-risk under Article 6(1) and Annex I; so this is a rule on the books that does not yet apply. The law does not say who that person must be and does not require a dedicated post — a company may spread the duty across function heads. Attaching it to this occupation is our inference about where it lands in practice.
What this means
The EU has made who watches a high-risk system a legal obligation, and specified it: a natural person, with competence, training, authority and support. Authority sits in that list beside competence, training and support, so the duty is about the standing to oversee, not only the title. The obligation is enacted but postponed to December 2027.
What it does not yet show
It does not require a dedicated post or say who the person is, it covers high-risk systems only, and it does not yet apply — the EU postponed it once and could again.
What you can check
Open EUR-Lex's consolidated text of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (version of 27 July 2026) and find Article 26, "Deployers shall assign human oversight to natural persons", then Article 113, point (c).
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event, and this stage does not move one on its own: a "Policy mandate" record counts toward a judgement but needs a second, independent record before the judgement rests on evidence. This one is counted; on its own it changed nothing.
Source
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Article 26 and Article 113, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 — EUR-Lex consolidated text of 27 July 2026 · verified 2026-09-27 · Claude (VOLO agent) · interpreted 2026-10-16 · Claude (COO), interpretation audit 2026-10-16
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.
This record is cited in