Art. 13: Transparency and provision of information to deployers under the EU AI Act

Art. 13 requires the provider to design and develop the high-risk AI system so that deployers can interpret its output and use it appropriately, and to supply instructions for use with the minimum content listed in Art. 13(3)(a) to (f). In this mapping, five elements are testable, fourteen are documentation and three are process. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 moved the application date for Annex III systems 2027-12-02Deferred and left the text of Art. 13 unchanged.

Where this applies

2027-12-02DeferredAnnex III standalone high-risk obligations
2028-08-02DeferredAnnex I product-embedded high-risk obligations

What the text requires

The instructions for use carry the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity declared under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii), which is the level tested under Art. 15. The human oversight measures in point (d) refer to Art. 14, and the log mechanisms in point (f) refer to Art. 12. Each testable element below is a check that a declared statement matches a recorded test result or a section of the Annex IV technical documentation.

What the text requires and how each element is verified
Requires	Testable	Documentation	Process
Art. 13(1)The provider designs and develops the high-risk AI system so that its operation is sufficiently transparent. The transparency enables deployers to interpret the output of the system and use it appropriately. The type and degree of transparency is appropriate to meet the obligations of the provider and the deployer in Chapter III Section 3. Art. 13(2)Instructions for use accompany the high-risk AI system. The instructions are in an appropriate digital format or otherwise. The instructions include concise, complete, correct and clear information. The information is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to deployers. Art. 13(3)The instructions for use contain at least the information in points (a) to (f). Art. 13(3)(a)The identity and the contact details of the provider. Where applicable, the identity and the contact details of its authorised representative. Art. 13(3)(b)The characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance of the high-risk AI system, including the items in points (i) to (vii). Art. 13(3)(b)(i)Its intended purpose. Art. 13(3)(b)(ii)The level of accuracy, including its metrics, robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Art. 15, against which the system has been tested and validated and which can be expected. Any known and foreseeable circumstances that may have an impact on that expected level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. Art. 13(3)(b)(iii)Any known or foreseeable circumstance, related to the use of the system in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, which may lead to risks to health and safety or fundamental rights referred to in Art. 9(2). Art. 13(3)(b)(iv)Where applicable, the technical capabilities and characteristics of the system to provide information that is relevant to explain its output. Art. 13(3)(b)(v)When appropriate, its performance regarding specific persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used. Art. 13(3)(b)(vi)When appropriate, specifications for the input data, or any other relevant information in terms of the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended purpose of the system. Art. 13(3)(b)(vii)Where applicable, information to enable deployers to interpret the output of the system and use it appropriately. Art. 13(3)(c)The changes to the system and its performance which the provider has pre-determined at the moment of the initial conformity assessment, if any. Art. 13(3)(d)The human oversight measures referred to in Art. 14, including the technical measures put in place to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs by the deployers. Art. 13(3)(e)The computational and hardware resources needed. The expected lifetime of the system. Any necessary maintenance and care measures, including their frequency, for the proper functioning of the system, including as regards software updates. Art. 13(3)(f)Where relevant, a description of the mechanisms included within the system that allow deployers to properly collect, store and interpret the logs in accordance with Art. 12.	The accuracy level and metrics declared in the instructions for use under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) match the result of a test on a held-out set under the declared conditions of use. The robustness and cybersecurity levels declared in the instructions for use under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) match the result of perturbation and adversarial tests under the declared conditions of use. The known and foreseeable circumstances declared under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) reproduce the declared change in performance or the declared risk when the system runs under those circumstances. The performance declared for specific persons or groups under Art. 13(3)(b)(v) matches the disaggregated results recorded in the technical documentation. Each statement in the instructions for use on intended purpose, input data specifications, pre-determined changes, human oversight measures and log mechanisms (Art. 13(3)(b)(i), (b)(vi), (c), (d) and (f)) matches the corresponding section of the Annex IV technical documentation.	Instructions for use exist in an appropriate digital format or otherwise and accompany the system (Art. 13(2)). The information in the instructions for use is concise, complete, clear, relevant, accessible and comprehensible to deployers (Art. 13(2)). The instructions for use state the identity and contact details of the provider and, where applicable, of its authorised representative (Art. 13(3)(a)). The instructions for use state the intended purpose (Art. 13(3)(b)(i)). The instructions for use declare the level of accuracy with its metrics, robustness and cybersecurity against which the system was tested and validated, and the known and foreseeable circumstances that affect that level (Art. 13(3)(b)(ii)). The instructions for use list the known or foreseeable circumstances under the intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable misuse that may lead to risks to health, safety or fundamental rights (Art. 13(3)(b)(iii)). Where applicable, the instructions for use describe the technical capabilities and characteristics that provide information relevant to explain the output (Art. 13(3)(b)(iv)). When appropriate, the instructions for use state the performance regarding the specific persons or groups on which the system is intended to be used (Art. 13(3)(b)(v)). When appropriate, the instructions for use give specifications for the input data and relevant information on the training, validation and testing data sets (Art. 13(3)(b)(vi)). Where applicable, the instructions for use give information that enables deployers to interpret the output and use it appropriately (Art. 13(3)(b)(vii)). The instructions for use state the changes to the system and its performance that the provider pre-determined at the initial conformity assessment, if any (Art. 13(3)(c)). The instructions for use describe the human oversight measures under Art. 14 and the technical measures that facilitate interpretation of the outputs (Art. 13(3)(d)). The instructions for use state the computational and hardware resources needed, the expected lifetime, and the maintenance and care measures with their frequency, including software updates (Art. 13(3)(e)). Where relevant, the instructions for use describe the mechanisms that allow deployers to collect, store and interpret the logs under Art. 12 (Art. 13(3)(f)).	Transparency of operation is a design and development objective carried through the lifecycle of the system, at a type and degree appropriate to the obligations of the provider and the deployer (Art. 13(1)). The maintenance and care measures declared under Art. 13(3)(e), including their frequency and software updates, are carried out over the expected lifetime of the system. The instructions for use are revised when a pre-determined change under Art. 13(3)(c) is applied or when a re-test changes the declared level under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii).

Metrics and where thresholds come from

Threshold sources, in order of precedence

A harmonised standard cited in the Official Journal (none as of the anchor date)
A JTC 21 draft standard (prEN), with its stage
An ISO/IEC standard or technical report, with its stage
A Commission guideline or code of practice, with its date from the standards data
NIST AI RMF or a sector framework
The state of the art, which the provider justifies and documents

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 sets no numeric threshold in Art. 13. Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) requires the provider to declare the level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity against which the system was tested and validated; the Act does not state what that level has to be. No harmonised standard is cited in the Official Journal, so no presumption of conformity exists for this article. The hierarchy level in use today is a JTC 21 draft: prEN 18229-3 (draft, no public text) for the information a provider gives deployers, and prEN 18229-2 (draft) for the structure of the accuracy and robustness declaration. The provider sets the declared level, justifies it against the context of use, and records the justification. The PR-15-ROB test-plan step that fixes the metric, the test set and the acceptance criterion records that justification, and the PR-11-DOC consistency step checks the declaration in the instructions for use against the recorded result.

Metric sources and their stage
Source and stage	Title	What it provides here	Verified on
`prEN 18229-3`Draft	AI trustworthiness framework, part 3: transparency and human oversight	draft requirements for the content and form of the information a provider gives deployers under Art. 13; at drafting stage no text is public, so it fixes no acceptance criterion today	Verified on 18 September 2026kla.digital, JTC 21 standards tracker (29 June 2026)
`prEN 18229-2`Draft	AI trustworthiness framework, part 2: accuracy and robustness	draft structure for declaring accuracy and robustness levels with their metrics and test conditions, which the Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) declaration follows and a PR-15-ROB test verifies	Verified on 18 September 2026kla.digital, JTC 21 Standards Tracker (updated 29 June 2026)

Procedures

Each protocol is versioned; its page states the derivation from the standards above. PR-11-DOC v1.0 checks the instructions for use for completeness against Art. 13(3) and for consistency with the Annex IV technical documentation, and PR-15-ROB v1.0 verifies the level declared under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii).

PR-11-DOC v1.0Annex IV documentation assembly and consistency protocolv1.0
PR-15-ROB v1.0Robustness and adversarial testing protocolv1.0

What an assessor asks for

Instructions for use (Art. 13(2))
Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity declaration in instructions for use (Art. 13(3)(b)(ii))
Known and foreseeable circumstances register (Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) and (iii))
Pre-determined changes statement (Art. 13(3)(c))
Log collection, storage and interpretation mechanism description (Art. 13(3)(f))
Instructions-for-use completeness checklist against Art. 13(3)(a) to (f) (PR-11-DOC output)
Instructions-for-use to technical documentation consistency report (PR-11-DOC output)
Declared-level verification test report (PR-15-ROB output)

Common findings

Accuracy is declared as a single number without the metric definition, the test set or the conditions of use.
Robustness and cybersecurity are named in the instructions for use without a level against which the system was tested.
The intended purpose stated in the instructions for use is wider than the population and conditions the test data covers.
Known and foreseeable circumstances that reduce performance are listed in the risk management file but not in the instructions for use.
The human oversight section of the instructions for use describes the user interface and not the measures under Art. 14.
The instructions for use describe the current version and carry no statement of pre-determined changes or of the maintenance frequency.

Questions

What does Article 13 of the AI Act require?

Art. 13(1) requires the provider to design and develop the high-risk AI system so that its operation is sufficiently transparent for deployers to interpret the output and use it appropriately. Art. 13(2) requires instructions for use that accompany the system in a digital format or otherwise. Art. 13(3) lists the minimum content of the instructions in points (a) to (f). Point (b)(ii) requires the declared level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity against which the system was tested under Art. 15. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 did not change the text of Art. 13.

What does Article 13 transparency and provision of information to deployers cover?

Article 13 covers two things: the transparency of the system's operation under Art. 13(1) and the instructions for use under Art. 13(2) and (3). The instructions for use name the provider, state the intended purpose, declare the tested performance levels and the circumstances that affect them, and describe explanation capabilities, group-level performance and input data specifications under Art. 13(3)(b). The instructions also state pre-determined changes under Art. 13(3)(c), human oversight measures under Art. 13(3)(d), resources, lifetime and maintenance under Art. 13(3)(e), and the log mechanisms under Art. 13(3)(f). Art. 13 applies to Annex III systems from the Annex III application date and to Annex I systems from the Annex I application date.

Which parts of EU AI Act Article 13 can be tested?

The declared accuracy level under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) can be tested against a held-out set under the declared conditions of use with PR-15-ROB. The declared robustness and cybersecurity levels can be tested with perturbation and adversarial tests under PR-15-ROB. The known and foreseeable circumstances under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) can be reproduced to check the declared effect on performance. Every other statement in the instructions for use can be checked for presence and for consistency with the Annex IV technical documentation under PR-11-DOC. The Act sets no numeric threshold for the declared level; prEN 18229-2 is a draft and prEN 18229-3 has no public text, so the provider justifies the level against the context of use.

How we test this

We verify the accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity level declared under Art. 13(3)(b)(ii) against a test result obtained under the declared conditions of use, and we check consistency between each statement in the instructions for use and the Annex IV technical documentation. The documentation service and the mock assessment prepare this evidence within the limits stated on what we cannot do.

Technical documentation and evidence-pack preparationPR-11-DOC
Pre-conformity mock assessmentPR-43-MOCK

What we cannot do

We do not perform conformity assessments where a notified body is required.
We do not issue CE marking or the EU Declaration of Conformity.
We are not a notified body.
We do not give legal opinions on classification or liability.
We test against requirements, prepare evidence, and structure documentation; compliance decisions remain with the provider or deployer, their notified body, and their counsel.

Read the full statement