Identifying, Resolving & Documenting Conflicting Positions

In the early implementation period, conflicting guidance from different member states is a real risk. The Legal and Regulatory Advisor maintains a conflicting guidance register recording, for each identified conflict, the specific provision in dispute, the conflicting interpretations, the affected AISDP modules, and the organisation’s chosen position.

The resolution approach adopts the more conservative interpretation unless doing so would conflict with a third authority’s guidance or create a technical impossibility. If the conflict is material (affecting the system’s design, human oversight model, or intended purpose scope), the organisation considers raising the issue with the AI Office. An advisory opinion from the competent authority in the primary deployment jurisdiction may also be sought.

Regardless of resolution method, the organisation documents its interpretation, reasoning, the guidance considered, and supporting evidence. A well-documented position, even if later proved incorrect, demonstrates good faith compliance effort, which is a mitigating factor under Article 99(7).

Key outputs

• Conflicting guidance register with per-conflict documentation
• Conservative interpretation as default resolution approach
• AI Office referral for material conflicts
• Module 10 AISDP evidence