Template
EU AI Act Article 73 - Serious Incident Template
Article 73 is not just about writing an incident memo after something goes wrong. The hard part is having a structured path that can detect likely incidents, gather the relevant evidence quickly, and prepare a handoff without pretending that the toolkit decides the legal threshold by itself.
Who supplies what
What Article 73 expects, what the toolkit can add, and what your team still owns
Without connecting your agent, the toolkit can only draft the dossier d'incident grave from the current package. After adapter integration and monitoring history, it can add real triggers, linked evidence, and corrective-action references from live outputs.
| Article 73 expects | Toolkit with generated package only | Toolkit after adapter integration | Still written and approved by your team |
|---|---|---|---|
| A trigger list for incident review | Creates a serious-incident draft with current machine triage, trigger categories, and open operator inputs. | Can link that draft to real monitoring signals, blocked cases, approval cases, and related package outputs. | Decide which triggers count as serious-incident review triggers in your legal and operational context. |
| A technical evidence dossier for triage | Can point to the current rapport de comparaison, review outputs, and linked dossier files already in the package. | Can assemble those files around the specific cases and signals that triggered the incident review. | Decide which additional documents, witnesses, or external records must be added for a real incident review. |
| Corrective-action linkage | Can show the current corrective-action references already present in the generated pack. | Can keep those references linked to monitoring history, revue de mise en production, and related article outputs over time. | Choose the remediation owner, deadline, and approval workflow for the corrective action. |
| A reporting decision boundary | Can show that incident triggers and supporting evidence exist. | Still does not decide whether the legal threshold for reporting is met after integration. | Make the legal reportability decision, write the notification text, and approve any authority communication. |
Manual fields
What your team still adds to Article 73
The toolkit can prepare the technical side of incident triage. It does not make the legal reporting decision or author the final notification for you.
| What you add | When you add it | Practical format to use |
|---|---|---|
| Legal threshold analysis | As soon as the draft incident pack indicates a likely serious incident. | A short legal or policy note stating whether the event appears reportable and why. |
| Notification recipients and timeline | Before any formal reporting or escalation leaves the team. | A short contact and timeline list naming who must be informed and by when. |
| Final reportability decision | At incident review or counsel sign-off. | Accepted as reportable, not reportable, or needs more review, plus the named approver. |
| Authority or customer-facing narrative | When the incident pack needs to be turned into an external communication. | The written summary your organization uses for the final notification or briefing. |
| Corrective-action owner and closure rule | Once the incident review results in remediation work. | A named owner, target date, and the rule for when the action is considered closed. |
How this fits into the full package
Article 73 is built from incident, monitoring, review, and risk-update files
The files below are the main evidence surfaces for Article 73. Their layout is the toolkit's structured format for these requirements, not an EU-mandated form.
| File in the package | Why it matters for Article 73 | Open file |
|---|---|---|
| Article 73 dossier d'incident grave - article-73-serious-incident-pack.json | Main draft file for technical incident triage and preparation. | Open file |
| Post-market monitoring - post-market-monitoring.json | Provides ongoing monitoring signals that can feed incident triage. | Open file |
| Human oversight summary - human-oversight-summary.json | Provides the human review, blocking, and escalation signals linked to the same incident package. | Open file |
| Article 9 risk register - article-9-risk-register.json | Shows how a serious incident can feed back into documented risk updates. | Open file |
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
What is the Article 73 - Serious Incident template page for?
This page explains what the Article 73 - Serious Incident template section usually needs to cover inside an EU AI Act package, which parts can be supported by structured evidence, and which parts remain owned by the provider, deployer, or legal reviewer.
Does this Article 73 - Serious Incident template page create a complete EU AI Act package?
No. It is one section-level guide. A review-ready package still needs the selected role and scope, the other applicable article-level sections, linked technical evidence, owner completion, and final human review.
What evidence should be linked to the Article 73 - Serious Incident template section?
Use evidence that is current, traceable to the relevant system version, and connected to real runs, retained records, or approved procedures. A weak package relies only on narrative text; a stronger package links the narrative to reproducible artifacts.
Who should review the Article 73 - Serious Incident template section before handoff?
The technical owner should confirm the system facts and evidence links, while compliance or legal reviewers confirm whether the section is sufficient for the selected EU AI Act role, scope, and conformity path.