Accountability record
Trusq is operated by a small team with automated systems doing most of the work: monitoring the primary EU sources, drafting, publishing and re-checking. That is the direction a lot of organisations are heading. It creates one new problem — when software does the work, who is still accountable for what it says? This page is our own answer, in numbers, including the parts that are unfinished or wrong.
Live counts from the same database that serves the updates feed. Publishing since 26 Jun 2026. Most recent entry 11 Sep 2026. Of everything detected, 67 arrived through automated monitoring rather than a person adding it, and 25 published entries have since been checked by a human against their primary source.
Every hour, Trusq re-checks its published claims against the official sources and raises an operational alarm when a claim no longer matches. See the latest source-check timestamp and route-level evidence on What Trusq monitors, and the current service state on the status page.
Automated publication means mistakes reach the page before a person has read them. That is a deliberate trade: speed on a deadline is worth more than a queue, provided every correction is public and the original URL never moves. 3 published entries have been corrected after publication.
| Entry | What was wrong |
|---|---|
| Commission fines AliExpress €550 million for breaching the Digital Services Act | Filed under the wrong framework and described as enforcement against a member state. AliExpress is a platform, and the action falls under the DSA, not the AI Act. |
| Commission publishes Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated… | Mapped to the GPAI articles (53/55). It actually supports the Article 50(2)/(4) transparency duties. |
| Digital Omnibus — high-risk deferral | Status was stale: still recorded as pending after the act had been published in the Official Journal on 24 July 2026 and entered into force. |