AI Act Post-Market Model Monitoring Adviser

The mandate

The board needs a durable answer to one recurring question: which evidence from live, customer-configured workforce models should change a product boundary, trigger investigation or force corrective action under its AI Act posture? Current reporting combines uptime, global accuracy, support tickets and periodic bias reviews, but cannot connect a model version and customer configuration to affected groups, human overrides, complaints or materially changed use.

The adviser will reserve three working days each month for monitoring-pack review, chair consultation and structured management challenge, and will attend five Product Risk Committee meetings in Brussels. Two site visits to Berlin or Paris are included; a written view on a potential serious event or proposed material model change is expected within one European business day, with unscheduled analysis capped at eight hours monthly.

The appointment begins 25 January 2027 and runs for ten months. In month eight, the chair and committee chair will review independence, contribution and readiness of the internal monitoring forum; one extension of up to five months requires a full board decision, and management cannot renew the adviser directly or convert the role into operational compliance ownership.

This mandate provides influence and challenge only, with no line-management power, delegated approval or executive responsibility. The adviser cannot classify the system legally, file a notification, direct a recall, approve a model change, instruct a customer or sign compliance records; designated executives and counsel retain each decision and must record the evidence and reasoning where they depart from the advice.

The adviser may maintain two other significant appointments, but not with a direct workforce-software competitor, a customer in an active monitoring dispute or a vendor being selected for conformity or assurance work. Remuneration from recruitment platforms, model providers, auditors or claimant representatives must be disclosed, and access to case-level records may be restricted or the appointment ended where recusal cannot cure the conflict.

Why the board wants this voice

The directors receive extensive policy updates but lack a member who has operated post-market model surveillance across configurable enterprise deployments. Legal, product and data teams describe different units of harm and material change, so board packs report activity without supporting a timely intervention choice. The chair wants an experienced challenger who can connect technical signals, user context and governance consequences while leaving formal interpretation to counsel.

What you will own

• Press directors to define the deployed system population by model, version, customer configuration, intended purpose and materially foreseeable use before reviewing aggregate trends.
• Test whether monitoring joins performance drift, subgroup outcomes, human overrides, complaints, incidents and support evidence to the actual decision pathway affected.
• Challenge thresholds for investigation, customer restriction, rollback and corrective action, especially where low-frequency harm disappears inside global averages.
• Shape a model-change taxonomy that separates routine maintenance from revisions requiring renewed evidence, customer communication or reconsideration of deployment boundaries.
• Probe contractual access to customer logs, outcome labels and incident facts so the monitoring plan does not depend on information the provider cannot obtain.
• Coach the committee to distinguish a technical anomaly, misuse, quality failure and potential reportable event without substituting board judgement for legal determination.
• Frame the evidence and dissent record accompanying each material monitoring decision, including the accountable executive, response deadline and verification of closure.

Candidate qualifications

• Advised or served a European technology board on post-market monitoring for AI systems used in employment, credit, health or another consequential decision context.
• Built live model surveillance that traced versions and customer configurations to cohort outcomes, overrides, complaints, incidents and corrective actions.
• Challenged a monitoring threshold that concealed low-frequency or subgroup harm and can evidence the resulting investigation or deployment restriction.
• Governed material model changes across data, algorithm, intended use and customer configuration with documented decisions about renewed validation.
• Worked constructively with legal counsel on AI Act or comparable product-governance obligations without presenting technical advice as binding legal interpretation.
• Managed conflicts among model suppliers, assurance firms, enterprise customers and affected-user interests while retaining board-level independence.

Non-negotiables

• Can preserve three days monthly, attend all five Brussels meetings and complete two agreed Berlin or Paris visits during the ten-month term.
• Will disclose board roles, retainers, investments and expert work involving workforce platforms, model suppliers, customers or assurance providers before appointment.
• Accepts that legal classification, notification and corrective action remain with accountable executives and counsel, even where the adviser’s view is minuted.
• Has governed monitoring of deployed, configurable AI systems; policy drafting or pre-release model validation alone does not satisfy the requirement.

1. 49 words maximum. Which current technology, customer, assurance or claimant relationships would require disclosure or recusal for this appointment?
2. 49 words maximum. Describe one post-market signal that caused you to narrow, recall or materially change an AI deployment, including the decision threshold.
3. 49 words maximum. Confirm the Brussels and site-visit cadence and your response capacity for an urgent monitoring or model-change question.