Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.
Builds on
16 of 30 references.
References · 16
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 412
- 2022"I'm sorry to hear that": Finding New Biases in Language Models with a Holistic Descriptor Datasetcited by 162
- 2021Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Actcited by 84
- 2026Runtime Governance for AI Agents: Policies on Pathscited by 18
- 2025Governance-as-a-Service: A Multi-Agent Framework for AI System Compliance and Policy Enforcementcited by 17
- 2025Robustness and Cybersecurity in the EU Artificial Intelligence Actcited by 11
- 2024AI Cards: Towards an Applied Framework for Machine-Readable AI and Risk Documentation Inspired by the EU AI Actcited by 10
- 2024A Robust Governance for the AI Act: AI Office, AI Board, Scientific Panel, and National Authoritiescited by 4
4 more
- 2025Assessing High-Risk AI Systems under the EU AI Act: From Legal Requirements to Technical Verificationcited by 4
- 2026Bathtubs, Boundaries, and Sandboxes: AI Regulatory Learning under Legal Uncertaintycited by 4
- 2024Towards Assuring EU AI Act Compliance and Adversarial Robustness of LLMscited by 3
- 2026Computational Compliance for AI Regulation: Blueprint for a New Research Domaincited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.