AI Post-Market Monitoring Plan Template (EU AI Act Article 72)
Post-market monitoring plan for a high-risk AI system: data collection, thresholds, reviews, Article 73 incident reporting
Mode d'emploi: Use it as the provider of a high-risk AI system; the plan is part of the Annex IV technical documentation. Define metrics and action thresholds tied to declared performance first, and rehearse the serious incident workflow. The main pitfall is missing the 2, 10 and 15 day reporting deadlines because triage has no owner.
Aperçu
Post-Market Monitoring Plan: [High-risk AI system] [version]
Post-market monitoring plan for a high-risk AI system, organised on Article 72 (post-market monitoring) and Article 73 (reporting of serious incidents) of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI). The plan forms part of the technical documentation under Annex IV. Under the amended Article 113, the high-risk requirements apply from 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and from 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems; check the consolidated text. Replace every
[bracketed]value and every row marked Example. This is a documentation format, not legal advice.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [PMM-PLAN-001] |
| AI system and version | [Name] [version] |
| Annex III / Annex I category | [Example: Annex III point 4(a): recruitment and selection] |
| Provider | [Legal name] |
| Plan version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / Approved / Superseded] |
| Plan owner | [@pmm-owner] |
| Quality management system reference | [QMS procedure ID] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Next review | YYYY-MM-DD |
1. Scope and objectives
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| System versions covered | Example: 3.x placed on the market from YYYY-MM-DD |
| Markets | Example: All EU Member States |
| Deployers | Example: 37 employer organisations under contract |
| Integration with other regimes | [None / Integrated into [product legislation] monitoring / financial services governance] |
| Interaction with other AI systems | Example: Receives CV parsing output from a third-party system; analysed in 3.4 |
Objectives: [Example: confirm that the system continues to meet the requirements for high-risk systems in Chapter III Section 2 (accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity, human oversight, risk management) in real use; detect emerging risks, misuse and drift early; feed findings into the risk management system and corrective actions.]
2. Responsibilities
| Role | Responsibility | Person or team |
|---|---|---|
| Plan owner | Maintains plan, chairs monitoring review | [@name] |
| Data and ML team | Collects telemetry, computes metrics | [@team] |
| Quality and regulatory | Assesses incidents, files reports | [@name] |
| Customer success | Collects deployer feedback | [@team] |
| Deployers | Monitor operation under instructions for use; inform the provider of risks and serious incidents (Article 26) | Contract clause [x] |
| Management | Approves corrective actions with significant impact | [@name] |
3. Data collection
3.1 Performance data
| Source | Data | Method | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example: Production logs (Article 12 logging) | Inputs metadata, scores, overrides, latency | Automated export | Daily |
| Example: Outcome labels from deployers | Hiring decisions 6 months later | Quarterly data request | Quarterly |
| Example: Ground-truth audit sample | 300 cases re-scored by experts | Manual | Quarterly |
3.2 Incidents and complaints
| Source | Data | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Example: Deployer incident reports | Malfunctions, harms, near misses | Support portal form, 24/7 |
| Example: Complaints from affected persons forwarded by deployers | Description, outcome | Portal |
| Example: Security reports | Vulnerabilities | Disclosure programme |
3.3 User feedback
[Example: quarterly survey of deployer recruiters (usability, trust, override reasons); free-text feedback in the interface reviewed weekly.]
3.4 External sources
[Example: market surveillance authority notices, published research on similar systems, media reports, changes in the third-party CV parser release notes.]
4. Metrics and thresholds
| ID | Metric | Declared / baseline | Alert threshold | Action threshold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM-01 | Example: Ranking accuracy (NDCG@10 on audit sample) | 0.78 | < 0.74 | < 0.70 |
| PM-02 | Example: Selection rate ratio by sex | >= 0.90 | < 0.85 | < 0.80 |
| PM-03 | Example: Selection rate ratio by age band | >= 0.90 | < 0.85 | < 0.80 |
| PM-04 | Example: Human override rate | 8% to 20% | Outside 5% to 25% | Outside 3% to 35% |
| PM-05 | Example: Input drift (population stability index) | < 0.1 | > 0.2 | > 0.3 |
| PM-06 | Example: Complaints per 10,000 assessments | 1.2 | > 3 | > 6 |
| PM-07 | Example: Availability | 99.5% | < 99.0% monthly | < 98% |
Selection rate ratio for group relative to the group with the highest rate:
5. Analysis and review cadence
| Activity | Frequency | Participants | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Automated dashboard check | Daily | Data and ML team | Alerts |
| Metric review | Monthly | Plan owner, ML, quality | Monitoring report |
| Fairness and drift deep dive | Quarterly | Plus external reviewer | Quarterly report |
| Management review | Annually | Management, quality | Plan update, risk management input |
6. Serious incident reporting (Article 73)
6.1 Timelines
| Situation | Latest report after becoming aware |
|---|---|
| Serious incident (general rule) | Immediately after establishing a causal link or reasonable likelihood of one, and no later than 15 days |
| Widespread infringement, or serious and irreversible disruption of critical infrastructure | Immediately, no later than 2 days |
| Death of a person | Immediately after establishing or suspecting a causal link, no later than 10 days |
An incomplete initial report may be submitted first, followed by a complete report. Systems under the competence of the AI Office report to the AI Office instead (Article 75(1a) as amended).
6.2 Workflow
| Step | Owner | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Triage and classification against Article 3(49) | Quality and regulatory | 24 h |
| Preserve evidence: logs, model version, inputs; do not alter the system in a way that affects analysis of causes before informing the authority | ML team | Immediately |
| Initial report to market surveillance authority | Quality and regulatory | Within the timelines in 6.1 |
| Investigation including risk assessment and corrective action; cooperate with authorities and notified body where relevant | Plan owner | [30] days |
| Inform affected deployers | Customer success | 48 h |
7. Corrective actions
| Trigger | Possible actions | Decision by |
|---|---|---|
| Alert threshold | Investigation, increased sampling | Plan owner |
| Action threshold | Retraining, threshold change, deployer guidance update | Plan owner and management |
| Serious incident or non-conformity | Suspend feature, withdraw or recall, inform deployers and authorities (Article 20) | Management |
Every corrective action records the cause, the change, the re-validation evidence and the date the related risk register entry was updated.
8. Documentation and records
| Record | Location | Retention |
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring reports | [QMS repository] | [10 years after placing on market] |
| Incident files and authority correspondence | [Repository] | [10 years] |
| Metric data and audit samples | [Data platform] | [Per data retention policy] |
| Plan versions | [Technical documentation] | [10 years] |
9. Plan review
The plan is reviewed [annually] and when: a substantial modification is made; a serious incident occurs; metrics show a new risk; the Commission guidance and template under Article 72(3) are published; or the Regulation or harmonised standards change.
| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | First draft |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Example: Approved with technical documentation |
Standard and licence note
Based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the Artificial Intelligence Act) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI), Articles 72 and 73 with references to Articles 3(49), 20, 26 and 75; EU legislative texts are free to reuse. The requirements are summarised in original wording and no text of the Regulation is reproduced. Check the consolidated text on EUR-Lex and current Commission guidance. This is a documentation format, not legal advice. Template licence: MIT.
Modèles associés
Model Monitoring Plan Template (MLOps)
Production ML monitoring: performance, drift (PSI), data quality, fairness, latency, alerts, retraining triggers
IA & DonnéesAI Agent Specification Template
Specify a tool-using AI agent: autonomy level, tools and permissions, guardrails, security, trajectory evals, cost
IA & DonnéesAI Feature PRD Template
PRD for an AI-powered feature: why AI, failure and uncertainty UX, metrics, eval thresholds, cost per request, rollout