Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Legal analysis reveals upstream concentration of transparency duties in the EU AI Act, indicating Article 86 functions as a targeted safeguard against information asymmetry.
Transparency is a central yet abstract concept in the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). This article examines how transparency is conceptualised and operationalised in the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). It maps the transparency obligations contained in the AI Act according to their scope, orientation, function and legal nature. The analysis shows that these obligations are predominantly concentrated at the upstream level of the AI value chain and primarily address providers of high-risk AI systems; that transparency orientations can be distinguished as regulatory, operational and subject-oriented transparency; and that many obligations serve a traceability function. The article further characterises transparency by design as a distinct type of transparency obligation conceived for high-risk AI systems. Against this background, the article provides a legal-dogmatic analysis of Article 86 AI Act and the newly introduced right to explanation, arguing that Article 86 constitutes an ex post and subsidiary practical safeguard aimed at mitigating information asymmetries in AI-assisted decision-making, rather than establishing a general right to algorithmic transparency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hajo Michael Holtz (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: