The AI Assessment Sandbox Configurator: A Framework to Support Technical Assessment in AI Regulatory Sandboxes

The systematic assessment of AI systems is increasingly vital as these technologies enter high-stakes domains. To address this, the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act introduces AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS): supervised environments where AI systems can be tested under the oversight of Competent Authorities (CAs), balancing innovation with compliance, particularly for startups and SMEs. Yet significant challenges remain: assessment methods are fragmented, tests lack standardisation, and feedback loops between developers and regulators are weak. This paper operationalises the AIRS lifecycle. We map the sandbox journey into 29 concrete activities, from pre-participation guidance through application, preparation, participation, exit, and post-participation monitoring, and we distinguish between a Core AIRS centred on regulatory oversight and an Extended AIRS that additionally embeds structured technical testing through an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS). From this mapping we derive 15 infrastructural and governance requirements that an AITS must satisfy, each linked to the activities it supports and, for high-risk systems, to the provider obligations set out in Articles 9-15 of the AI Act. The framework aims to address multiple stakeholders: CAs gain structured workflows for applying legal obligations; technical experts can integrate robust evaluation methods; and AI providers access a transparent pathway to compliance. We conclude by outlining the Sandbox Configurator, an open-source framework intended to instantiate AITS environments from these requirements, and by discussing how a shared technical foundation can support a scalable and innovation-friendly European infrastructure for trustworthy AI governance.

The rapid, unpredictable advancements in AI system capabilities has seen regulators take adaptive and experimental approaches to policymaking. Established in other domains as instruments balancing regulation with innovation, regulatory sandboxes are seen as solutions for AI regulation. However, analyses mostly focus on the legal and institutional design of AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRSes). With the legal framework leaving the socio-technical interpretation to stakeholders, this creates a gap on the sense-making required to fulfill the AIRS purpose. In this paper, we approach this by designing a Boundary Negotiating Artifact as a way to mediate meaning in AIRSes. Through Research-through-Design we iteratively develop a tool, providing an interface for the different stakeholders to collaborate in AI assessment. We then position it as technical backbone in established AIRS frameworks, structuring the collaborative sense-making of the involved stakeholders. We further report the insights gained from our design process leaving the qualitative evaluation for future work.

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.