Since 2 August 2026 the EU AI Act requires the data behind a high-risk AI system to be examined for bias and documented as fit for its intended purpose (Article 10)

Event date / reported

Evidence stage

Tasks this bears on

Where this applies

The EU market, and only for high-risk systems under Article 6 that are trained on data — the duty falls on the provider, which is the organisation, not the individual engineer. It is recorded against answering for what the system does to people rather than against the data-preparation task itself: Article 10 governs how that data work must be done, but says nothing about how much of it a machine now does, and attaching it to the direction of that task would claim more than the text supports. What it does establish is that being able to show the data was suitable for the purpose, examined for bias and gap-checked has moved from professional practice to a documented legal duty. The article says nothing about how many teams already work this way, what it costs, or what applies outside the EU.

What this means

What it does not yet show

The duty falls on the provider organisation, not on a named engineer. The article does not say how many teams already work this way, how much of the data work a machine now does, what any of it costs, or what applies outside the EU.

What you can check

Does it change the assessment?

Source