---
id: ch12-eu-ai-act-alignment
type: spine
title: "Holding the principles against the EU AI Act"
readingTime: 3
standalone: true
core: false
teaser: "D2.3 maps each PoliRural+ AI principle to an AI Act provision and to the tool that delivers it. Read it as a self-check, not a legal verdict."
parent: null
diagram: diagram-ai-ethics
recallQ: "How does PoliRural+ relate its AI principles to the EU AI Act, and what kind of document is that mapping?"
recallA: "D2.3's alignment map pairs each principle with AI Act provisions it reads as matching (for example transparency with Article 13, ethical use with human oversight and accuracy in Articles 14 and 15) and names the project mechanism behind it. It is the project's own self-assessment against a risk-based Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, not a legal conformity assessment."
highlights:
  - "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force on 1 August 2024 and applies in phases"
  - "Risk-based: prohibited practices, high-risk systems, transparency obligations, minimal risk, plus rules for general-purpose AI models"
  - "D2.3 maps principles to Articles 9, 13, 14 and 15 and to concrete tools"
  - "The map is a self-assessment; article numbers here follow the adopted Regulation"
status: accepted
concept: eu-ai-act-alignment
conceptTitle: "Alignment with the EU AI Act"
parents: participatory-ai-principles
lang: en
lens: generic
depth: standard
formalism: none
visuality: balanced
lengthBand: deep
genre: explainer
state: edited
carriers: prose|table|diagram
---

The **EU AI Act**, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, entered into force on **1 August 2024** and its obligations apply in phases. It follows a **risk-based approach**: some practices are prohibited; **high-risk systems** must meet specific requirements; other systems carry **transparency obligations**, such as telling people that they are interacting with an AI system (Art. 50); minimal-risk uses carry no specific obligations. Separate rules cover **general-purpose AI models**. Which dates apply to which obligation is set in the Regulation and can change through later acts, so check the official text on EUR-Lex rather than a summary.

## The alignment map (D2.3, Table 64)

| Principle | AI Act provision as cited in D2.3 | PoliRural+ mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Transparency & Explainability | Art. 13: users can interpret outputs and decide in an informed way | Advisor outputs are explainable; JackDaw references its sources |
| 2 Stakeholder Co-Creation | Art. 9: risk management and human oversight that involve stakeholder perspectives | RAPs co-designed through the Advisor; stakeholder foresight interviews |
| 3 Multi-Actor Involvement | a recital on involving civil society and public actors (as cited in D2.3) | MAAT supports quadruple-helix participation |
| 4 Iterative Feedback | Art. 9: risk management as a continuous, iterative process | VULTURE feedback loops and work-awareness journaling |
| 5 Ethical & Responsible Use | Arts. 14 and 15: human oversight, robustness, accuracy | Bias and hallucination risks flagged in Advisor and JackDaw |
| 6 Capacity Building | training users (D2.3 cites Art. 29 of the 2021 proposal; in the adopted text: AI literacy, Art. 4, and deployers' duties, Art. 26) | Workshops on MAAT, JackDaw and the Advisor |
| 7 Inclusive Policy Design | Art. 5(1)(c): the ban on social scoring that leads to unjustified detrimental treatment | Inclusive foresight and RAP drafting |
| 8 Gender Equality & Social Justice | none mapped | Workshop and sub-project reporting |

## How to read it

- **It is a self-assessment.** D2.3's "Notes on Compliance Level" states that the Advisor and MAAT align with most requirements on risk management (Art. 9), data governance (Art. 10), transparency (Art. 13), human oversight (Art. 14) and accuracy and robustness (Art. 15). That is the project's reading. Whether a particular deployment counts as high-risk depends on its use case as the Regulation defines it.
- **Article numbers checked against the adopted Regulation.** Articles 5(1)(c), 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 50 match the adopted text. Where D2.3 follows the numbering of the 2021 proposal (its Art. 29 on users), the table gives the adopted articles. Recital numbers cited in D2.3 were not re-checked and are left out.
- **The eighth principle has no AI Act counterpart.** It comes from the project's Just Transition agenda, not from the Regulation.
- **Planned steps are still plans.** D2.3 lists as actions a public endorsement of the voluntary **General-Purpose AI Code of Practice** and a white paper for discussion with DG AGRI, DG CONNECT and the AI Office. It also contains a draft press release with the date left blank. This book does not confirm that these steps took place.

The useful part for a region is the right-hand column: every provision is matched to something a pilot can show, ask about, or fix. The [AI ethics dashboard](#c/ai-ethics-dashboard) turns that column into a form.

**Sources:**
- D2.3 Rural-urban data analysis, §2.4 PoliRuralPlus AI Principles vs. EU AI Act mapping (Table 64, Notes on Compliance Level); §3.2 Plan to strategically position PoliRuralPlus; §2.5–2.6 press release drafts — [PDF](https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/382/D2.3_Rural_Urban_data_analysis_v1.0.pdf)
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), official text on EUR-Lex — [EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj)