Claim · 2025-07-10 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

EU GPAI Code of Practice states in part what the law question “Threshold” asks.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (final version, 10 July 2025) → states provision → Threshold

Where it appears

Laws compared →

Claim and evidence

General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (final version, 10 July 2025)states provision ↓Threshold

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Threshold or trigger · provision ID comparison-law-q02
Subject version: Final version (10 July 2025) · Published 2025-07-10 · Effective date not established
Date: 2025-07-10 · publication Records dated 2025 →

Scope and limitsThe Chapter sets no threshold of its own; its scope is the AI Act category of models with systemic risk, whose conditions are in Article 51 of the Act. Measure 1.1 ties the timing of the Framework to the provider's notification under Article 52(1) of the Act. Search for the rest of the criterion: Whole text: Objectives, Recitals, Commitments 1 to 10 with Measures, Glossary, Appendices 1 to 4. Terms searched: “Article 51”, “Article 52”, “FLOP”, “floating”, “10\^”. Passages read and not counted: Measure 1.1, last paragraph (PDF p. 7): Refers to notification under Article 52(1) AI Act as a timing point; sets no condition of its own. Measure 1.2, point (1)(a) (PDF p. 7): 'Trigger points' (e.g. training compute) for lighter-touch evaluations, set by the Signatory; not a scope threshold. Stated, partly: the passage has what the question’s criterion asks for, in a weaker form than the criterion’s own words. What the instrument’s text states, from the expression read. A cell records what the text requires of the parties it defines: not whether any developer falls within them, or complied.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Safety and Security chapter (final version, 10 July 2025)

European Commission · 2025-07-10

Archived copy, captured 2025-07-10: General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Safety and Security chapter (final version, 10 July 2025)

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk”

Location in source Recitals, (b) (PDF p. 3) (part)

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-04

Source details and check notes

Authors: Chairs and vice-chairs of the Code’s working groups (independent experts)
Version: PDF served by the Commission on 2026-10-04 (a re-rendered file of 43 pages); it has the same 15,392 words as the Internet Archive capture of 2025-07-10 (10:58 UTC, 40 pages), with a different reading order on the cover page. Every quote matched in both expressions. Publisher as printed on the inspected expression: European Commission (AI Office). Retrieved again for the laws-compared candidate pack on 2026-11-01 from the Publications Office’s repository (Cellar), because EUR-Lex returned an empty response (SHA-256 d879f9b54c6068aae57ebaead9d90ddaa46f2503312b9185367a724fa8da2f4a); the pack’s quotations were matched in it, and again in fresh retrievals of 2026-11-02 and 2026-11-04.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-04
Language: English (en)
Archive copy: Open archived copy, captured 2025-07-10: General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Safety and Security chapter (final version, 10 July 2025). Captured on the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-07-10. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-04.
Attribution: General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, Safety and Security chapter (10 July 2025), published by the European Commission.
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, laws compared (research/laws-compared), cell eu-code-ss:Q02. The quotation (8 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-01 (SHA-256 d879f9b54c6068aae57ebaead9d90ddaa46f2503312b9185367a724fa8da2f4a) and again in fresh retrievals on 2026-11-02 and 2026-11-04. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The same words are quoted in an earlier record of the dataset, so they add nothing to the source’s quotation count. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-02, item 10) answered this cell blind and agreed with the pack. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Machine-checked. Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An exact framework edition, or another document with an exact expression, states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), a stated exception, or another statement of its content, such as a licence term or a prospectus statement. The passage records what the document says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.

Date. Dated as the text compared is dated: the date of issue of its version, “Final version (10 July 2025)”.

Record ID lc-cell-eu-code-ss-q02