{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]],"date-time":"2026-10-10T21:48:36Z","timestamp":1791668916391,"version":"4.3.4"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]],"date-time":"2026-10-10T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1791590400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Eur. j. risk regul."],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>Whether a new technology needs its own law is an old question, and for artificial intelligence (AI), it has been posed at the wrong level of abstraction. Both the case against technology-specific law and the case for regulation by design treat the AI model as the regulated object, although a general-purpose model acquires its risk only when deployed. This article relocates the regulatory object to the deployment workflow, defined as the envelope of thresholds, escalation pathways and human checkpoints that surrounds a model in use, and reads the EU Artificial Intelligence Act as management-based regulation that works only where the workflow is specifiable and a standing supervisor examines it. Hungary\u2019s first-wave implementation shows the second condition deciding the outcome: the same obligations are supervised by the central bank in finance and by a ministry with no examination relationship in employment, so the Act\u2019s uniform text conceals uneven supervision within one Member State. The Digital Omnibus on AI, which postpones the high-risk obligations because standards and authorities are late, opens a window to build supervision deliberately: the priority is not better definitions but better supervision.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/err.2026.10165","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]],"date-time":"2026-10-10T20:59:41Z","timestamp":1791665981000},"page":"1-14","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["From the Law of the Horse to the Workflow: Why Institutions, Not the Model, Decide the EU AI Act\u2019s Effectiveness: Lessons from Hungary\u2019s First-Wave Implementation"],"prefix":"10.1017","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0005-7485-7271","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Nimr\u00f3d","family":"Mike","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"id":[{"id":"https:\/\/ror.org\/01vxfm326","id-type":"ROR","asserted-by":"publisher"}],"name":"Corvinus University of Budapest"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]]},"container-title":["European Journal of Risk Regulation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S1867299X26101652","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]],"date-time":"2026-10-10T20:59:42Z","timestamp":1791665982000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S1867299X26101652\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]]},"references-count":0,"alternative-id":["S1867299X26101652"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/err.2026.10165","relation":{},"ISSN":["1867-299X","2190-8249"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1867-299X","type":"print"},{"value":"2190-8249","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,10]]}}}