Pinned snapshot. This article is rendered from the catalog state captured at (closest snapshot at-or-before your requested date of ). The live version may differ — drop the
?asOf= parameter to see the current catalog state.Disclosure of training data, model cards, system-card requirements.
Definition & scope
The cross-jurisdiction picture below shows how each of 45 tracked instruments treats this topic. The patterns vary substantially — explicit conflicts exist where instruments take incompatible positions, and 4 regimes are silent, leaving gaps that future policy work could address.
Coverage across jurisdictions
Historical primacy & cross-jurisdiction tension
First addressed by General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on (governs). Subsequent regimes have either codified, diverged from, or remained silent on this baseline.
Compare jurisdictions: EU vs US · EU vs UK · EU vs CN
Enforcement & impact
Conflicts and divergence
Instruments that take explicitly conflicting positions on Transparency Obligations.
- conflictsInterim Measures for Generative AI Service Management— Art. 4 + Algorithm Recommendation Rules — disclosure to CAC, not public; conflicts with EU public-disclosure model
Silent regimes — gap signal
Instruments that do not address Transparency Obligations — candidates for future policy work.
- Executive Order 14179 — Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AIUS
- African Union Continental AI StrategyAfrican_Union
- DFARS Subpart 252.204 (Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting)US
- TAKE IT DOWN Act (Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act)US
See also
Further reading
27 academic & grey-literature sources bearing on this topic — catalogued metadata with a primary link; one-line findings are ✦ AI-generated summaries, labeled as such (charter §7.9). Browse the full literature index.
- The Right to Transparency in Public Governance: Freedom of Information and the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Public Agencies Peer-reviewed✦ AIFinds freedom-of-information regimes "generally only grant access to existing documents" and that with "no mature standard for documenting AI models," public-sector AI transparency is limited.
- On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives Peer-reviewed✦ AISynthesises interdisciplinary evidence to argue that legally mandated human oversight of AI is often ineffective ('rubber-stamp') unless effectiveness conditions are explicitly designed for.
- Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits Peer-reviewed✦ AIAnalyses how AI-audit mandates create a new political economy of auditing, warning that audit markets can entrench rather than constrain power without underlying governance.
- Transparent AI? Navigating Between Rules on Trade Secrets and Access to Information Peer-reviewed✦ AIExamines the tension between AI Act disclosure duties and trade-secret protection, identifying which technical details lack trade-secret eligibility to enable transparency.
- Dutch Comfort: The Limits of AI Governance through Municipal Registers Peer-reviewed✦ AICritiques Amsterdam/Helsinki AI registers as risking "ethics theater" by decontextualising and depoliticising algorithmic systems used in the digital welfare state.
- Datasheets for Datasets Peer-reviewed✦ AIProposes "that every dataset be accompanied with a datasheet that documents its motivation, composition, collection process, recommended uses" for transparency and accountability.
- Algorithmic Impact Assessments and Accountability: The Co-construction of Impacts Peer-reviewed✦ AIArgues algorithmic impact assessments depend on how "impacts" are co-constructed, and that AIA regimes must define who measures impacts and to whom accountability is owed.
- Algorithmic impact assessments under the GDPR: producing multi-layered explanations Peer-reviewed✦ AIProposes that GDPR algorithmic impact assessments be combined with individual rights to produce layered, system-and-individual explanations of automated decisions.
- Model Cards for Model Reporting Peer-reviewed✦ AIProposes "model cards" — short documents accompanying trained models with benchmarked evaluation across conditions — the template transparency mandates reference.
- Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability Peer-reviewed✦ AICritiques accountability models resting on "ideals and logics of transparency", presenting ten limitations of transparency as a route to algorithmic accountability.
- Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation Peer-reviewed✦ AIArgues the GDPR mandates only "meaningful, but properly limited, information" about automated decisions — a right to be informed, not a right to explanation of specific decisions.
- Model Card PreprintMitchell et al. (2019), 'Model Cards for Model Reporting,' FAccT '19
- Scalable Oversight PreprintChristiano, P., Shlegeris, B., Amodei, D. (2018), 'Supervising Strong Learners by Amplifying Weak Experts.'
- Capability Elicitation PreprintQi, X., Zeng, Y., Xie, T., Chen, P.-Y., Jia, R., Mittal, P., Henderson, P. (2023), 'Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!'
- Dual-Use Research Norms (DURC for AI) PreprintSolaiman, I., et al. (2019), 'Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models' — the canonical articulation of structured-access norms for foundation models.
- Policy Instrument Peer-reviewedLascoumes, P. & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments — From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance 20(1): 1-21. See also Hood (1983) The Tools of Government, ch. 1-2; Salamon (2002) The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, pp. 1-47; Howlett (2011) Designing Public Policies, ch. 3-5.
- Training-Data Attribution PreprintGrosse, R., et al. (2023), 'Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functions' (Anthropic) — the canonical articulation of scalable influence-function-based attribution for foundation models.
- Prompt Injection PreprintGreshake, K., Abdelnabi, S., Mishra, S., Endres, C., Holz, T., Fritz, M. (2023), 'Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection.'
- Agentic AI System PreprintYao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., Cao, Y. (2022), 'ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models.'
- Multi-Turn Evaluation PreprintZheng, L., et al. (2023), 'Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena' — operationalises the multi-turn evaluation protocol for foundation models.
- Data Poisoning PreprintCarlini, N., et al. (2024), 'Poisoning Web-Scale Training Datasets is Practical' — establishes practical feasibility of poisoning frontier-model training corpora.
- Jailbreak Resistance PreprintZou, A., Wang, Z., Kolter, J. Z., Fredrikson, M. (2023), 'Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models' — the canonical demonstration that gradient-based suffix attacks transfer across aligned LLMs.
- Hallucination PreprintJi, Z., et al. (2023), 'Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation,' ACM Computing Surveys 55(12): 1-38.
- In-Context Learning PreprintBrown, T., et al. (2020), 'Language Models are Few-Shot Learners' (GPT-3 paper) — the canonical articulation of in-context learning as an emergent capability.
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) PreprintLewis, P., et al. (2020), 'Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks,' NeurIPS — the canonical articulation of RAG.
- Policy Brief: Our recommendations for strengthening data access for public interest research Civil society✦ AIRecommends stronger platform data-access rules so independent researchers can study automated systems in the public interest.
- A Systematic Review of Responsible Artificial Intelligence Principles and Practice Peer-reviewed✦ AIPRISMA systematic review (553 of 22,711 screened studies) of responsible-AI principles and practice, including transparency and accountability.
References
The primary instrument sources behind the article's classifications.
- EU-AIA-2024: Arts. 13, 50 (transparency obligations)
- US-EO-14110: §4.2(a)(i) (reporting includes red-team results)
- UK-WHITEPAPER-2023: Principle 4 (transparency + explainability)
- CN-GENAI-2023: Art. 4 + Algorithm Recommendation Rules — disclosure to CAC, not public; conflicts with EU public-disclosure model
- G7-HIROSHIMA: Code §2 (publicly report capabilities, limitations)
- OECD-AI-PRIN: Principle 1.3 (transparency + explainability)
- COE-AI-CONV: Art. 8 (transparency + oversight)
- UN-RES-2024: Calls for trustworthy AI broadly
- NIST-AI-RMF: Trustworthy characteristics 5 (transparency) + 6 (explainability)
- BLETCHLEY-2023: Declaration §6 endorses transparency to evaluators; no operative requirements
- SEOUL-2024: Declaration §4 + Commitments §3 (publish safety frameworks)
- NIST-AI-RMF-GENAI: Govern + Map cross-cutting documentation requirements applied to GenAI
- CA-SB-1047: Required safety determinations are public; full safety case is to regulator only
- IN-DPDP-2023: DPDPA §5 notice requirements + MEITY Mar-2024 Advisory transparency mandates
- BR-AIBILL-2024: PL 2338/2023 Art. 7 (right to information about AI use + algorithmic explanation)
- ASEAN-AI-GUIDE-2024: ASEAN Guide §4 (transparency + explainability principle)
- ANTHROPIC-RSP-2024: RSP v2 §5 — public publication of safety determinations + capability eval methodology
- OPENAI-PREPAREDNESS-2023: Public Preparedness Reports + Safety Advisory Group decisions; full evaluation methodology partially disclosed
- DEEPMIND-FSF-2024: FSF publication discloses framework + thresholds; per-evaluation outputs not consistently public
- META-FRONTIER-2024: Open-weight release + framework publication is itself a transparency posture; trade-off discussed in framework text
- UK-US-AISI-MOU-2024: Information sharing between AISIs; not public-facing transparency obligations
- WH-VOLUNTARY-2023: Commitments §6 (public reporting on capabilities, limitations, appropriate use)
- SG-MODEL-AI-2024: Framework Dimension 7 (Content Provenance) + Dimension 5 (Testing + Assurance) — pairs with AI Verify toolkit
- JP-METI-AI-2024: Guidelines Principle 5 (Transparency) — model documentation + capability disclosure
- EU-GDPR-2016: Arts. 12-14 (information to data subjects); Art. 13(2)(f) + 14(2)(g) meaningful information about ADM logic; Art. 22(3) suitable safeguards
- EU-GPAI-COP-2025: Chapter 1 (Transparency) — 13 commitments + ~40 measures operationalising Art. 53(1)(a)-(c) model documentation + training-data summary
- OMB-M-24-10: §3(a)(iv) public AI use-case inventory; Attachment 1 §5(c)(v) plain-language public notice + explanation for rights-impacting AI
- GSA-AI-GUIDE-2024: Due-diligence questions call for vendor disclosure of training-data provenance, evaluation results, and model documentation
- DOD-RAI-2022: Ethical Principle 'Traceable' + Tenet 2 (Warfighter Trust) — documentation + explainability requirements integrated into T&E + V&V lifecycle
- FEDRAMP-AI-2024: FedRAMP authorisation requires System Security Plan + control documentation; GenAI guidance extends to vendor disclosure of training-data provenance, evaluation results, model documentation
- CA-SB-53: Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12 — frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework + a pre-deployment transparency report
- CA-SB-243: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22602(a) (added by SB 243) — operator must issue a clear-and-conspicuous notification that the companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human where a reasonable person would be misled; § 22602(c) adds, for known minors, a default every-three-hours AI-reminder + break notification
- CA-SB-942: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.2(a) (added by SB 942) — a covered provider must make available, free and publicly accessible, an AI detection tool that lets a user assess whether image/video/audio content was created or altered by that provider's GenAI system; reinforced by § 22757.3(a) manifest-disclosure user option
- EU-PLD-2024: Art. 9 — court-ordered disclosure of relevant evidence in the defendant's control, reinforced by the Art. 10(2)(a) adverse presumption for non-disclosure
- UNESCO-AI-ETHICS-2021: Principle 'Transparency and explainability', para 38 — people informed of AI-based decisions + right to request explanation
- EU-PWD-2024: Directive (EU) 2024/2831, Article 9 (with Arts. 7-8)
- CN-DEEPSYN-2022: Art. 16 & Art. 17
- NY-RAISE-2025: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(C) — a large developer must conspicuously publish (with appropriate redactions) its written safety and security protocol and transmit a copy to the attorney general
- IT-AILAW-2025: Multiple operative disclosure duties: Art. 4(3) clear-language information on AI data processing + right to object; Art. 7(3) patient information; Art. 11(2) worker notification; Art. 13(2) professional's duty to disclose AI use to the client.
- JP-AIPROMO-2025: Act No. 53 of 2025, Art. 3(4)
- UN-GDC-2024: GDC Objective 5, para 55(d) (A/RES/79/1, Annex I)
Cite this article 8 formats · BibTeX, RIS, APA, Chicago, … · 1-click copy
Verify the year + paste-and-refine. Primary source linked in BibTeX/RIS note.
Persistent identifier: https://policywindow.org/wiki/transparency — committed-stable URL with content-versioning via ?asOf= (rollout pending per methodology §7). DOIs via Zenodo are on the roadmap.
Article tools — track changes, suggest an edit
View history — every captured revision of this article · What links here
Source: Edit on GitHub (search for `transparency`)
41 instruments tracked.