Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1994 1993 1992 1991 1989 1986 1985 1984 1983 1979 1966 1965 1961 1960 1955 1952 1950 1872 1863 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Country Reset filters
101 people, organisations and other records · 133 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
The Commission's Opinion on the Code of Practice states that the Code contains no key performance indicators to measure the implementation and outcome of its commitments and that the Commission, in line with the drafters' assessment, considers such indicators currently not appropriate. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Object version Opinion of 1 August 2025 · Published 2025-08-01 · Effective date not established Date 2025-08-01 · signature Scope and limits The Commission's statement, dated by the Opinion. The initial draft had said that KPIs were still being deliberated (recorded separately); the record does not say why the final Code has none.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ European Commission · 2025-08-01
Archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “The Code does not contain any key performance indicators to measure the implementation and outcome of the Code's commitments.” Location in source Paragraph (44) (p. 10)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors European Commission Version PDF inspected 2026-10-04, byte-identical (SHA-1) to the Internet Archive capture of 2025-08-13. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-04 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ . Captured 12 days after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-08-13. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.Attribution European Commission, Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (1 August 2025). Reuse European Union; quoted briefly under the editorial policy. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Candidate pack passage, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The quotation (19 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-27 and again at admission on 2026-10-28, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Read directly from ec.europa.eu. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ European Commission · 2025-08-01
Archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase In line with the independent experts who drafted the Code, the Commission considers key performance indicators currently not appropriate to ensure the achievement of the Code's objectives.
Location in source Paragraph (44), second sentence (p. 10)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors European Commission Version PDF inspected 2026-10-04, byte-identical (SHA-1) to the Internet Archive capture of 2025-08-13. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-04 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-08-13: Commission Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice ↗ . Captured 12 days after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-08-13. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.Attribution European Commission, Opinion C(2025) 5361 on the assessment of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (1 August 2025). Reuse European Union; quoted briefly under the editorial policy. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Candidate pack passage, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved on 2026-10-27 and read directly from ec.europa.eu; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. Publication of a specific document or version. Publication of a policy is not evidence of implementation.
Date. Dated by the Opinion.
Record ID fl-eu-opinion-no-kpis