AI Liability Directive (withdrawn)
Historical context, not live law: the proposed fault-based liability companion to the PLD would have introduced a rebuttable presumption of causality where AI Act duties (oversight, logging) were breached, plus court-ordered disclosure of technical documentation, logs and risk assessments. The Commission announced its withdrawal in the 2025 work programme, so no such presumption exists in EU law. What survives in practice is the substance: the revised Product Liability Directive (reg-pld) now carries the software and AI liability weight, including disclosure duties and its own rebuttable defect presumption — which keeps evidence architecture a liability defence for exactly the same reasons.
2 components0 articles / obligations3 triggering use casesopen in graph WORM / Immutable Audit Vault
100% of use casesAppend-only, hash-chained audit vault (WORM object-lock storage, AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit). Guarantees tamper-evidence within the organization's trust domain — which stops your own team, but not an admin who can rebuild the vault. Pair with an external trust anchor and key ceremonies outside the operating team for evidence that holds against the insider scenario.
- named in regulationAI Liability Directive (withdrawn) → WORM / Immutable Audit Vaultlog preservation defeats the non-compliance presumption
- evidence artefactAI Liability Directive (withdrawn) → Event Logs & Decision Traces → produced by WORM / Immutable Audit VaultEvent Logs & Decision Traces
OpenTelemetry / FCoT Tracing
67% of use casesHierarchical trace spans for every sub-task, prompt, retrieved document and API call — the reconstructible decision path for Art. 12/14 and PLD disclosure.
- named in regulationAI Liability Directive (withdrawn) → OpenTelemetry / FCoT Tracing
- evidence artefactAI Liability Directive (withdrawn) → Event Logs & Decision Traces → produced by OpenTelemetry / FCoT TracingEvent Logs & Decision Traces