Maintain technical documentation: Under the EU AI Act, which combination best satisfies the provider's
Provider transparency for a high-risk system centers on technical documentation, instructions for use to deployers, and a post-market monitoring plan.
The question
Your organization is the provider of a high-risk AI system and is preparing to place it on the market; downstream deployers need to operate it safely, and post-market obligations must be met once it is live. Under the EU AI Act, which combination best satisfies the provider's transparency and public-disclosure obligations?
Preparing for AIGP? Take the free 5-min readiness quiz →
- Publish a plain-language marketing datasheet, register the trademark for the system, and offer deployers an optional support contract covering troubleshooting during the first year of operation.Plausible because customer-facing materials and support do accompany a launch, but a marketing datasheet and support contract are not the mandated transparency artifacts and omit technical documentation and post-market monitoring.
- Maintain technical documentation, supply instructions for use to deployers, and put a post-market monitoring plan in place to track performance and surface issues after release. ✓Correct because the EU AI Act ties provider transparency to exactly these artifacts: technical documentation, instructions for use enabling safe deployer operation, and a post-market monitoring plan for ongoing oversight.
- Complete an internal conformity assessment, retain the results confidentially, and disclose documentation only if a supervisory authority formally requests it during a later compliance inquiry.Plausible because conformity assessment is a real obligation, but transparency requires proactively providing instructions for use to deployers and a monitoring plan, not withholding documentation until an authority asks.
- Provide deployers a summary of training data, publish a public copyright policy, and rely on those two disclosures to meet the system's full transparency obligations at release.Plausible because training-data summaries and copyright policies are genuine GPAI-model duties, but they belong to general-purpose models and do not substitute for a high-risk system's documentation, instructions and monitoring plan.
The trap
Confusing GPAI-model provider duties (training-data summary, copyright policy) with the technical documentation and instructions-for-use duties owed by a high-risk system provider. How to remember it
Provider transparency for a high-risk system centers on technical documentation, instructions for use to deployers, and a post-market monitoring plan.
How many of these would you get right?
One of 499 AIGP questions on Certsqill. Take a free five-minute check and see your score per domain — not one number, but which section to open tonight.
Test your AIGP readiness — freeMore Understanding How to Govern AI Development questions
- A model card summarizing intended use: Under III.C.1, which readiness artifact fits this need? →
- To establish compliance and manage risks by creating: According to design-and-build governance, what is the →
- Record the datasets: Which practice best meets the objective of documenting the training and testing process? →
- All 135 Understanding How to Govern AI Development questions →
Part of the Certsqill AIGP question bank · Understanding How to Govern AI Development ·
Every answer, right and wrong, comes with its own explanation.
