arXiv: When Does Authorization End? Effect Closure at Provider Boundaries

The paper, published on arXiv in September 2026, examines a critical gap in AI system accountability: the point at which a provider’s authorization over an AI model ends once the model is deployed or integrated into a third-party system. It introduces the concept of "effect closure," arguing that current regulatory frameworks fail to define clear boundaries for responsibility when an AI model’s behavior is altered by downstream users, fine-tuning, or external prompts. The authors propose that providers should specify technical and contractual limits on post-deployment modification, and that regulators need new criteria to determine when liability shifts from the original developer to the integrator or end-user.

The primary audience is AI model developers, cloud service providers, and enterprise deployers operating under the EU AI Act, particularly those offering general-purpose AI or high-risk systems. Financial institutions, healthcare providers, and public sector bodies that embed third-party models into their workflows will also be affected, as they may unknowingly assume liability for actions beyond the provider’s original authorization. Compliance teams in these sectors should review their procurement contracts to ensure they include explicit clauses on permissible modifications, monitoring obligations, and liability transfer triggers.

As a next step, compliance professionals should map their current AI supply chain and identify where "effect closure" is ambiguous—for example, when a model is fine-tuned on proprietary data or exposed via an API. They should also update their risk management procedures to document the intended scope of use and establish audit trails for any changes made after initial deployment. Finally, they should monitor the EU AI Office’s forthcoming guidance on provider-deployer responsibilities, as this paper is likely to influence future delegated acts on post-market monitoring and incident reporting.