AIG-041 Regulatory Authorised Representative
Description
A recorded determination states, for each market the organisation places an AI system or a model on, whether regulation there requires a representative established in that jurisdiction and, where an exemption is relied on, which exemption and why it applies. Where a representative is required, one is appointed by written mandate before the system or model is made available. The mandate remains in force for as long as the obligation lasts. The mandate names the tasks the representative is empowered to perform, the documents it holds on the organisation's behalf, the period it holds them for and the grounds on which it terminates the mandate. The contact details of the representative are recorded against the system in the AI system inventory and are published where the applicable regulation requires. The determination and the mandate are reviewed when the representative changes, when the markets the product is placed on change and at defined intervals.
Rationale
GOV-010 records that an obligation applies and assigns ownership of it. AIG-041 is the act it calls for: a determination, a signed mandate and a custody arrangement for the documents the representative has to produce on request. The lighter option of a clause on GOV-010 was considered and set aside, because an inventory entry cannot be failed by nobody being appointed. One control serves three obligations of the same shape: the representative a provider established outside a market appoints for a regulated AI system, the equivalent for a provider of a general-purpose model and the data protection representative a controller or processor outside the market appoints. The last of those has no row in the framework extract yet, so it is named here and carries no mapping. The exemption test is part of the control rather than an assumption, because the carve-outs are narrow and can fall away on conditions the organisation itself controls, such as a model acquiring a systemic risk designation. Where one entity serves more than one of the three roles, a single mandate can cover them provided it names the tasks of each. Provider seat (ADR-031).
Applicability (9 profiles)
Condition: ai_risk_class in high-risk-annex-iii and the organisation is established outside the Union
Art.22 binds providers of high-risk systems established outside the Union. The Art.54 arm for general-purpose model providers belongs to the gpai-model-provider profile.
Art.22 and Art.54 bind providers established outside the Union. Where a non-EU provider has appointed a representative, the deployer records the contact details from the provider's documentation in its AIG-032 assessment.
Condition: ai_risk_class in gpai, gpai-systemic and the organisation is established outside the Union
Art.54 binds a general-purpose model provider established outside the Union to appoint an authorised representative before placing the model on the market; the Art.22 arm for high-risk systems belongs to the provider seat.
Condition: the organisation is established outside the Union
The base condition carries the risk class and the establishment together. Here the class is settled by the profile's facets, so establishment is all that is left to test. Art.22 requires a provider established in a third country to appoint an authorised representative established in the Union by written mandate before the system is made available on the Union market. It fixes the mandate's contents rather than leaving them to the parties: verifying that the Art.47 declaration and the Art.11 technical documentation have been drawn up and an appropriate conformity assessment carried out; keeping the provider's contact details, a copy of the declaration, the technical documentation and any notified body certificate at the disposal of the competent authorities for 10 years after the system is placed on the market; answering a reasoned request with the information demonstrating conformity and with access to the Art.12(1) logs; cooperating with authorities; and complying with the Art.49(1) registration where it applies. The representative terminates the mandate where it has reason to consider the provider is acting contrary to the Regulation and informs the market surveillance authority and any notified body immediately, which is a counterparty that can walk away. The Art.54 arm for general-purpose model providers stays with gpai-model-provider.
Art.22 and Art.54 bind providers established outside the Union. Where a non-EU provider has appointed a representative, the deployer records the contact details from the provider's documentation in its AIG-032 assessment.
Condition: ai_risk_class in high-risk-annex-iii and the organisation is established outside the Union
Art.22 binds providers of high-risk systems established outside the Union. The Art.54 arm for general-purpose model providers belongs to the gpai-model-provider profile.
Condition: ai_risk_class in high-risk-annex-iii and the organisation is established outside the Union
Art.22 binds providers of high-risk systems established outside the Union. The Art.54 arm for general-purpose model providers belongs to the gpai-model-provider profile.
Condition: ai_risk_class in high-risk-annex-iii and the organisation is established outside the Union
Art.22 binds providers of high-risk systems established outside the Union. The Art.54 arm for general-purpose model providers belongs to the gpai-model-provider profile.
Condition: ai_risk_class in high-risk-annex-iii and the organisation is established outside the Union
Art.22 binds providers of high-risk systems established outside the Union. The Art.54 arm for general-purpose model providers belongs to the gpai-model-provider profile.
Framework Mappings (2)
| EU-AI-Art.22 | Provider Obligations — Authorised Representative for Non-EU Providers | full |
| EU-AI-Art.54 | GPAI Model Obligations — Authorised Representative for Non-EU Providers | full |
Evidence (3)
Representative applicability determination, stating per market and per system or model whether a local representative is required and, where one is not, the exemption relied on and why it applies.
Example: Authorised representative determination, version 3 of 20 April 2026, covering four markets and two model families.
Test: Verify: (1) every market the product is made available in appears in the determination, (2) each entry reaches a conclusion rather than recording the question, (3) where an exemption is relied on, the determination names it and states the facts that make it apply, (4) the determination date pre-dates the date the product was first made available in each market it covers.
The executed written mandate appointing the representative, naming the tasks, the documents held, the custody period and the termination grounds.
Example: Authorised representative mandate executed 6 May 2026 between the organisation and its appointed representative, with the task schedule at annex 1.
Test: Verify: (1) the mandate is executed by both parties and its date pre-dates the date the system or model was made available in that market, (2) the task schedule names each task the applicable regulation requires the representative to be empowered to perform, (3) the mandate names the documents held and the period they are held for, (4) it states the grounds on which the representative terminates and what it does on termination.
Inventory export showing, for each system or model placed on a market that requires a representative, the representative's name, its contact details and the mandate reference.
Example: AI system inventory export ai-inventory-2026-06-30.csv with the representative columns populated.
Test: Verify: (1) every system the determination marks as requiring a representative carries the representative's name and contact details in the export, (2) each mandate reference resolves to an executed mandate that is in force, (3) no system marked as exempt carries a representative record that contradicts the determination, (4) the published contact details, where publication is required, match the export.
Questions (3)
Have you recorded, for each market you place an AI system or model on, whether a local representative is required?
This asks for the determination, not the appointment. A recorded conclusion that no representative is required, with the reason, is a yes. An assumption that the obligation does not apply, with nothing written down, is a no.
Where a representative is appointed, which of the following does the written mandate contain?
Answer for the mandates in force today. Where you have determined that no representative is required in any market, select None of the above; the determination is tested under question one.
When is the representative determination revisited?
Options run from the most complete trigger set to the least. A determination made once at launch and never revisited is the last option even where it remains correct.