AI Governance · Whitepaper

Chapter 7 · Sovereignty and Suppliers

Procurement, Vendor Management and Open Models

Key insights from Chapter 7 of "AI Governance"

Author Conceived and directed by Gunnar Nordqvist; text written by AI agents under his direction.
Published 1 November 2026
Build number 2026.11
eu-ai-act governance-as-code agentic-architecture digital-sovereignty
Figure 7.1: Sourcing options fall into buy, adapt and build. The further towards build the organisation moves, the more provider obligations it takes on (the table below).
Figure 7.1: Sourcing options fall into buy, adapt and build. The further towards build the organisation moves, the more provider obligations it takes on (the table below).

Chapter 6 assessed where a model comes from and whose law can reach its provider. This chapter, which closes Part II, turns that assessment into the terms on which an organisation buys. Very few large organisations train their own foundation models, so most of the AI they deploy will be bought, licensed, or downloaded, and procurement becomes an architectural activity. The contract decides which documentation the organisation will receive, whether it can leave, what happens when the vendor changes the model, and who answers to a supervisory authority when something goes wrong. The chapter covers the roles that purchasing creates under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the AI Act, public procurement, the third-party risk duties of DORA, the choice between open-weight and proprietary models, and the contract clauses that make exit possible.

Every AI purchase assigns the buyer a role, and the role carries duties. The AI Act distinguishes the provider, who develops a system or has it developed and places it on the market under its own name, from the deployer, who uses it under its own authority (1, European Union, 2024). Most purchasing organisations expect to be deployers; the contract and the architecture decide whether that expectation holds.

Article 25 of the AI Act makes a distributor, importer, deployer, or other third party the provider of a high-risk AI system if it puts its own name on a system already on the market, makes a substantial modification to it, or modifies its intended purpose so that it becomes high-risk. Each of these is an architectural act. An organisation that fine-tunes a purchased model and deploys it under its own branding for a purpose the original provider never documented has thereby taken on the provider's obligations for technical documentation, risk management, and conformity assessment. The original provider must then cooperate under Article 25(2), unless it has stated that its system must not be changed into a high-risk system.

Primary topics explored

  1. Buying AI is buying an obligation
  2. Public procurement of AI
  3. Evaluating vendors for AI Act compliance
  4. Lock-in and exit strategies
  5. Open-weight versus proprietary models
  6. Contract clauses for data use, model updates, and audit rights

About AI Governance

AI Governance is Book 2 of The Transformed Architecture. It shows how large European enterprises and public authorities decide what artificial intelligence is used for, classify and manage its risks, meet the obligations of the EU AI Act and its neighbours, choose and contract their suppliers, organise the forums that take decisions, and produce the evidence that shows it is all true.

It builds on the conclusions of Architecture as Code.

Who should read this

Chief risk and compliance officers, AI governance boards, CIOs and chief architects, and senior officials in public authorities.

Portrait of Gunnar Nordqvist

Gunnar Nordqvist

Conceived, directed and published the books of The Transformed Architecture.

Continue with the full chapter

Read the full chapter online

Chapter 7: Procurement, Vendor Management and Open Models in AI Governance gives the detailed explanations, practical examples and implementation patterns behind this summary.

This whitepaper belongs to “Sovereignty and Suppliers” and is one of 32 drawn from the manuscript.