FINAL: Balancing Innovation and Constraint

Scenario

Your organization spent eighteen months and real budget preparing its Annex III system for the EU AI Act’s general application date of 2 August 2026. On 27 July 2026, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 entered into force and moved the Annex III high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027. Sixteen months came back. Product wants the headcount for features; counsel notes, correctly, that legal exposure has dropped; the board asks what governance now costs and why.

Your task

Decide what your gates do, and defend the decision twice: once to the board in the language of risk and cost, and once to the people the system affects, who did not get sixteen months of relief from its decisions. Address the question directly: does G-0 stand down when a deadline moves? Distinguish what was ever actually indexed to the regulator’s schedule from what is owed on your own. If you release anything — budget, pace, review depth — name it and own it.

What the council weighs

Whether obligations run on the regulator’s calendar or the affected person’s. Pure defiance of the deferral scores no better than pure relief; the strong answer knows which constraints were load-bearing and which were compliance theater, and can tell the board the difference.

Submission

1,000–1,500 words. AI assistance is permitted and must be disclosed in your attestation; undisclosed assistance is grounds for revocation. Graded by council against the five rubric dimensions in the assessment specification.