Article 26(6) — log retention Law
The provision behind the most defensible finding on this site, and the one that shows why most findings are not like it.
Article 26(6) — log retention
Operative text not reproduced here — see the note above. Read it in the vault, where it was parsed from Formex XML and hash-verified, or at the authority.
The reading
A deployer must keep the logs automatically generated by a high-risk AI system for a stated minimum period — a period the project's material records as at least six months, subject to conditions in the operative text that this page does not reproduce.
What matters methodologically is not the number but its type. A retention obligation with a stated minimum is one of the few provisions where an assessment is arithmetic rather than judgement: you either kept them that long or you did not, and comparing two durations requires no interpretation, no context and no argument.
V1. Log retention is below the required minimum. Thirty days against six months is arithmetic, not judgement, which makes it the most defensible finding in the graph.
And the caveat, published beside it
Deriving V1 arithmetically | Thirty days against six months is clean; most obligations are not that crisp, and the graph must not imply they are.
A system that surfaces its arithmetic findings prominently — because they are clean, defensible and easy to render — quietly teaches its reader that compliance is arithmetic. It is not. Article 26(6) is the exception, and it is over-represented in every demonstration of this method, including this one. That is a property of what demos are easy to build, not a property of the law.
The verification this number still needs
The six-month figure here comes from the project's own analysis of the Act rather than from a clause-by-clause reading of the operative text, and it inherits the site-wide provenance weakness. It is stated as a reading. Before any external use, re-derive it from the operative text — including the conditions that qualify it, which a summary of this kind is exactly where you would expect to lose. Status →
Crosswalk edges
No bridge attaches to this provision, in either direction. Why there are none, and what has to be true before there are →
Citing this provision
https://standards.sgit.ai/eu-ai-act/provisions/art-026-para-06.html positional hash: 2d9c2cb6ef0892ae (sha256 of "eu-ai-act/art-026-para-06", first 16 hex)
The positional hash is the canonical identity; the alias is a projection of it. If the Act renumbers, the alias moves and the hash does not — which is what lets a crosswalk drawn today survive a consolidation. The scheme →