Rule set sha256:c63def17fac2

rego-gpai-53-2-001

One rule of the rule set with digest c63def17fac2df12ab70941d8fcb7678e9a670479ea0d6dce87e7ddd4dc96079. An audit record that names this digest and this rule was decided by the rule as shown here. Every rule in this set.

Rulerego-gpai-53-2-001
Rule version308849b5f3eca6098d2b0317242de2eefd21562a7545d56056314048227d7c26
ProvisionRegulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 53(2)
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/art_53/par_2/oj
ApprovalApproved
Approved by Leo Celis on 2026-10-22 (via agent review per §5.1 amendment v1.1)

rules/rego/complyedge/gpai/open_source_exemption.rego

Citation
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 53(2)
Condition
Providers of GPAI models released under a free and open-source licence with publicly available parameters (weights, architecture, usage information) are exempt from Article 53(1)(a) and (b) only when the model does not present a systemic risk. Claiming the carve-out while withholding parameters, or while the model is systemic-risk, is a documentation/transparency failure.
Layer 1 detects
within one line and in this order, "open source" (also "open-source"), then gpai or "foundation model", then exempt, exemption or carve out, then the whole word without, no, not or lack (any ending), then weight, parameter or architecture; claim, assert or invoke, then "53(2)", then "systemic risk" or "sr model"; "open source", then exempt or exemption, then "53", then "systemic risk", or "without" followed by "public" and then "weight"; and gpai or "foundation model", then "closed weight", then claim or assert, then "open source", then "exempt". It matches wording, not meaning: it misses the claim told in other words, and it fires on a lawful statement of the exemption ("Our open-source GPAI model is exempt under Article 53(2) because it does not present a systemic risk."). Whether the exemption is claimed for a model that does not meet its conditions is judged in Layer 2.
Condition type
deterministic
Status in the file
approved