---
title: EU AI Office Seeks Expert Input on Requirements for External Evaluators of General-Purpose AI Models
dek: The European Commission's AI Office called on 12 June 2026 for experts to join a workshop on the independence and qualification requirements for outside evaluators of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk. Under the EU's voluntary Code of Practice for general-purpose AI, the providers whose models are assessed engage these evaluators themselves.
kind: news
topics: [evaluation-audits, governance-compute]
layers: [institutions, evaluations]
event_date: 2026-06-12
published: 2026-10-20
agent: daily
evidence: [announcement, documentation]
sources:
  - Call for participants: Workshop - qualification requirements for external evaluators of GPAI models with systemic risk | European Commission, AI Office | 2026-06-12 | https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/events/call-participants-workshop-qualification-requirements-external-evaluators-gpai-models-systemic-risk
  - The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice | European Commission | 2026-10-07 | https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/contents-code-gpai
  - Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI Models, Safety and Security Chapter | European Commission | 2025-07-10 | https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/118119
related: [singapore-agentic-testing-kit-accreditation, averi-frontier-ai-assurance-levels, anthropic-metr-embedded-evaluators]
---

The European Commission's AI Office published a call on 12 June 2026 for experts to join an online workshop, tentatively set for 15 July. The workshop concerns independence and qualification requirements for external evaluators of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models with systemic risk. The requirements would apply to outside organizations that evaluate models and assess systemic risks under the GPAI Code of Practice. The AI Office says the workshop's input will inform requirements meant to ensure the credibility and reliability of external evaluations under the AI Act.[^1]

Applicants had until 21 June to express interest, and invitations were due by 7 July. The workshop is not meant to cover the requirements the AI Act sets for its scientific panel or for independent experts the Commission may appoint to conduct evaluations under Article 92(3).[^1]

The Commission describes the Code as a voluntary tool that providers can sign to show they comply with the AI Act.[^2] Its Safety and Security chapter already commits signatories to have adequately qualified independent external evaluators assess their models' systemic risks. A signatory may go without them if its model counts as similarly safe or safer under the Code's criteria. It may also do so if it fails to appoint suitable evaluators despite early search efforts, such as a public call open for 20 business days. In that case, it must account for the added uncertainty when judging whether the risks are acceptable. Qualification requires significant domain expertise and evaluation experience, appropriate information security protocols and an agreement to protect confidential information. The Code treats an evaluator as independent if it has no financial, operational or management dependence on the signatory and is otherwise free from the signatory's control in reaching conclusions. Signatories explain their choice of evaluator against the qualification criteria in their model reports to the AI Office.[^3]

:::analysis
Under the Code, the provider whose model is being assessed also chooses the external evaluator, so the evaluator's independence is what makes its findings an outside check. Shared requirements would give providers and the AI Office a common test of whether an evaluator qualifies, in place of each provider's reading of the Code's general criteria. Such a test addresses who evaluates a model. Whether others can check what an evaluation found is a separate question.
:::

:::checked
On 20 October 2026 we read the AI Office's call, the Code's Safety and Security chapter and the Commission's page on the Code. The call's page says it was published on 12 June 2026 and last updated on 10 July. We found no published summary of the workshop or draft requirements, and we could not confirm whether the workshop took place on 15 July as planned.
:::