Enabling Better AI Audits with Privacy‑Enhancing Technologies

The question

Europe's AI rulebook asks independent evaluators to verify that the most powerful AI models are safe — before the public relies on them. But today, an external evaluator examining a frontier model gets a chat window and an API key: they can knock on the front door and note what comes out. They cannot look inside. Research has shown that this black-box testing can miss precisely the things that matter most — hidden capabilities, backdoors planted during training, "deleted" abilities that were never really removed.

Why not simply hand evaluators the model? Because a frontier model's weights are its maker's most valuable asset and, for the most capable systems, a security risk if leaked. For years this stand-off looked unsolvable: real scrutiny or real security — pick one. The practical consequence was that "independent evaluation" risked meaning little more than checking a company's homework using the company's own pencil.

The breakthrough — and why it is only possible now

Confidential computing dissolves the trade-off. Modern processors can create a hardware-sealed environment — a trusted execution environment — that is locked even against the person who owns the machine. The hardware can also produce a cryptographic certificate (attestation) proving exactly which code ran inside. Put an AI model and an evaluator's tests inside such an environment and something new becomes possible: the evaluator works directly with the model's internals, while the developer's weights never leave the sealed hardware. Only the evidence — bounded, signed results — comes out.

And it protects both sides at once. The developer cannot see the evaluator's test suite — so tests cannot be studied and gamed, and the evaluator's methods stay confidential. The evaluator cannot copy the model. Each side keeps its secrets; both can trust the result. It is the digital equivalent of a double-blind procedure, and that mutual guarantee is what makes deep audits acceptable to the audited as well as the auditor.

Why didn't this happen years ago? Three things had to converge, and the third arrived only in the last few months:

• The hardware. Secure enclaves have existed in ordinary CPUs for a decade — but only for small workloads. Frontier AI runs on GPUs, and GPU-scale confidential computing has only become available in the latest generation of AI accelerators.
• The regulatory demand. Until recently, no legal framework asked for evaluations deep enough to need this machinery. That has changed — and not only for general-purpose AI under the AI Act and the GPAI Code of Practice. Member States are standing up their own evaluation capacity: France inaugurated INESIA, its national institute for AI evaluation and security, in 2025; Spain created AESIA, its AI supervision agency; counterparts are emerging in Germany, Italy and beyond, alongside the EU's AI Office. Every one of these bodies faces the same access problem this technology solves.
• The proof it's affordable. Everyone assumed sealing a giant model inside secure hardware would be cripplingly slow. Nobody had publicly measured it — until now.

These are the first public measurements of their kind, and they change the default answer. The obstacle to deep, independent AI audits is no longer physics or economics — it is institutional design. That is a question for policymakers, and it is now an open one.

Why it matters — whether you regulate, build or watch AI

• It turns "trust us" into "verify". Safety claims about frontier models — closed and open-weight — can be independently checked before public release, not taken on faith from the provider.
• It makes the AI Act enforceable in practice. Obligations on paper need technical means. Verification infrastructure is to AI governance what emissions testing is to car regulation.
• It is technological sovereignty in practice. A European capability to verify — rather than a dependency on providers' self-assessments — built on open research, relevant to the Cloud and AI Development Act and Europe's AI Gigafactories.
• Model providers gain too. Because their weights stay protected, providers can bring in outside evaluators and red-teamers during development, not just at the finish line — catching problems earlier and making external scrutiny a routine part of building a model rather than an adversarial event at the end.
• It makes compliance with EU digital law easier to demonstrate. The sealed hardware produces a cryptographic certificate of exactly which tests ran on which system, and results leave as tamper-evident, signed evidence. Compliance stops being a paper promise and becomes something a regulator can check. The same mechanism serves the AI Act's model evaluations, the Digital Services Act's vetted-researcher access to platform data, the GDPR when evaluations touch personal data, and the secure processing environments required by the Data Governance Act and the European Health Data Space.
• It protects innovation too. The same guarantees that let an auditor probe a model let hospitals, banks and statistics offices collaborate on data they could never share. Scrutiny and competitiveness are the same infrastructure.

The natural next step, which the keynote will put on the table: a European pilot joining an evaluator body, a governance partner and a frontier lab.

Keynote speaker

Dr Alejandro Tlaie Boria leads OpenMined's AI-audits stream (from September 2026). He conducted the research presented at this event as AI Policy Advisor at Pour Demain, working on AI verification: securely enabling deeper-than-black-box third-party evaluations of frontier models. Previously a Talos Fellow at SaferAI quantifying AI cyber-risk, he has around ten years of research experience (PhD, two postdocs, MPhil).

Key publications: Securing External Deeper-than-Black-Box GPAI Evaluations · A Blueprint for an EU Ecosystem of Secure, Deep and External AI Audits · Confidential computing can enable better frontier AI auditing · Don't Let AI Audits Become a Box-Ticking Exercise

Programme (16:00–18:30)

The chair of the session will be announced on this page.

Who should attend

The event is open to the public — anyone interested in how Europe will verify the safety of advanced AI is welcome; registration is free. It will be of particular interest to:

EU policymakers and staff (European Commission / AI Office, Members of the European Parliament and their advisers, Member State digital ministries) · AI Safety and Security Institutes and notified bodies · general-purpose AI model providers and compliance teams · third-party evaluators, auditors and red-teaming firms · confidential-computing and PET vendors · civil society and academia working on AI accountability · press covering AI governance.

Registration