The first version of the impact assessment for the Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) received a negative opinion from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB).
This is precisely what exercised oversight looks like.
The RSB did not challenge the political objective of the initiative.
It challenged the justification.
The measures were considered insufficiently specified. Their proportionality had not been sufficiently demonstrated. The causal links between measures and expected effects were not sufficiently substantiated. The economic reasoning and the cost-benefit assessments were also considered insufficiently convincing. (Impact Assessment (SWD(2026) 502), Annex 1.3, Table 2)
This is the crucial point.
The RSB did not say:
The objective is wrong.
It said:
The homework has not been done.
And without that homework, there was no positive opinion.
In many procedures, criticism has little practical consequence. It is registered, answered, or simply acknowledged.
In the CADA process, that was not enough.
The criticism had to be addressed.
The Commission’s response shows that the criticism was procedurally consequential. The impact assessment was revised. Measures were specified in greater detail, the intervention logic was expanded, and parts of the economic reasoning were strengthened. (Impact Assessment (SWD(2026) 502), Annex 1.3, Table 2)
The specific changes matter.
More important, however, is the fact that they had to be made.
That is precisely what distinguishes symbolic oversight from exercised oversight.
Symbolic oversight expresses criticism.
Exercised oversight compels rework.
The Commission did not receive a positive opinion before that rework had taken place.