title: "[Feedback] Delegated Acts & Technical Standards Support"
labels: ["user-feedback", "enhancement", "delegated-acts"]
body:
- type: markdown
attributes:
value: |
# Should we add delegated acts and technical standards?
We're considering expanding the MCP server to include:
- **Commission delegated regulations** (supplementing acts)
- **EBA/EIOPA/ESMA technical standards** (RTS/ITS for financial sector)
- **Implementing acts** (detailed application rules)
- **Harmonized standards** (referenced by regulations like AI Act, CRA)
## What this would enable
**Example queries:**
- "Show me DORA RTS on incident reporting format (EBA/2024/XXX)"
- "What are AI Act harmonized standards for cybersecurity?"
- "NIS2 implementing act notification templates"
- "eIDAS 2.0 technical specifications for trust services"
- "Medical Device Regulation common specifications"
## Trade-offs
**Benefits:**
- Complete compliance picture (principles + implementation details)
- Reduce EUR-Lex navigation time even further
- Map controls to actual technical requirements
**Costs:**
- +3 weeks development time
- +5-7MB database size (2,000-3,000 additional articles)
- More complex ingestion scripts (multiple authority sources)
- Maintenance overhead (more documents to monitor)
---
**Help us prioritize!** Your feedback determines our roadmap.
- type: dropdown
id: urgency
attributes:
label: How urgently do you need this?
description: Be honest - this helps us prioritize accurately
options:
- "🔴 Blocking current work (need it now)"
- "🟡 Needed within 3 months (planned compliance project)"
- "🟢 Needed within 6 months (future initiative)"
- "🔵 Nice to have eventually (low priority)"
- "⚪ Not needed (current scope is sufficient)"
validations:
required: true
- type: checkboxes
id: regulations
attributes:
label: Which regulations' delegated acts do you need?
description: Check all that apply (helps us prioritize which to add first)
options:
- label: "**DORA** - Financial sector incident reporting, testing, third-party risk"
- label: "**AI Act** - Harmonized standards for high-risk AI systems"
- label: "**NIS2** - Incident notification formats, security measures"
- label: "**MiCA** - Crypto-asset technical requirements (EBA/ESMA)"
- label: "**eIDAS 2.0** - Trust service provider technical specifications"
- label: "**GDPR** - Standard contractual clauses, certification criteria"
- label: "**MDR/IVDR** - Medical device common specifications"
- label: "**CRA** - Cyber Resilience Act security requirements"
- label: "**PSD2** - Strong customer authentication RTS"
- label: "**Other** (please describe below)"
- type: textarea
id: use_case
attributes:
label: What would you use this for?
description: "Specific use cases help us understand value. Examples: 'Build incident reporting UI', 'Map DORA to our controls', 'Generate compliance checklist'"
placeholder: |
Example: "We're implementing DORA compliance and need to reference the EBA RTS on ICT risk management (EBA/RTS/2024/XX). Currently have to context-switch between EUR-Lex tabs constantly."
Example: "Building an AI system governance tool - need to cross-reference AI Act articles with actual harmonized standards for conformity assessment."
validations:
required: true
- type: textarea
id: specific_standards
attributes:
label: Any specific delegated acts you need?
description: "CELEX IDs, regulation numbers, or descriptive names"
placeholder: |
Example: "EBA/RTS/2024/XX (DORA ICT risk management)"
Example: "Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/XXX on AI Act harmonized standards"
- type: dropdown
id: current_workaround
attributes:
label: What's your current workaround?
options:
- "Manual EUR-Lex searches (very time-consuming)"
- "Downloaded PDFs (hard to search across documents)"
- "Third-party compliance platform (expensive)"
- "Internal document repository (out of sync)"
- "No workaround - just need it"
validations:
required: true
- type: checkboxes
id: willingness_to_test
attributes:
label: Willingness to help
options:
- label: "I'd be willing to beta test this feature"
- label: "I'd be willing to provide feedback on UX"
- label: "I'd be willing to validate accuracy of ingested standards"
- label: "I'd consider sponsoring development (GitHub Sponsors)"
- type: textarea
id: additional_context
attributes:
label: Additional context
description: "Anything else we should know? Industry sector, team size, compliance deadlines?"
placeholder: |
Example: "Financial services, 50-person team, DORA compliance deadline March 2025"
- type: markdown
attributes:
value: |
---
## What happens next?
1. **Survey period:** 2 weeks from launch
2. **Decision criteria:**
- 20+ engaged responses + high urgency → Full implementation (v0.5.0)
- 10-20 responses + medium urgency → Phased approach (DORA-only v0.4.5)
- <10 responses → Defer, focus on other features
3. **Results published:** In `docs/demand-validation-2026-q1.md`
4. **Roadmap updated:** Based on validated demand
Thank you for helping shape the project! 🚀
