DORA Register of Information

Three of DORA's fields are three facts about a vendor's terms

Your register needs the provider entity that signed, the governing law's country, and the provider's headquarters country. Your filing tool gives you the columns. It does not know the answers. Vannus holds those three facts for 96 AI vendors, quoted from each vendor's own terms with a source and a date.

The three fields

Field names and descriptions are verbatim from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2956, Annexes I and II. If you have seen RT.xx names, those are from the 2023–24 draft and were superseded.

B_03.02 Always, per arrangement.

ICT third-party service providers signing the contractual arrangements for providing ICT service(s)

The record's fieldContracting entity

The legal person named in the vendor's own terms as the party the customer contracts with, quoted verbatim with the source URL and the date the page was read.

Twenty-nine of the vendors on record contract through more than one entity depending on where the customer is incorporated. For those the register needs YOUR entity, not a general one — which is what the paid report resolves.

B_02.02.0120 Conditional — critical or important functions.

Country of the governing law of the contractual arrangement

The record's fieldGoverning law

The choice-of-law clause, quoted from the vendor's own terms. The register wants the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the country that law belongs to; the record gives you the clause it comes from, so the code is checkable rather than asserted.

Mandatory only where the ICT service supports a critical or important function. Whether yours does is your determination, not ours.

B_05.01.0080 Always, per provider.

Country of the ICT third-party service provider's headquarters

The record's fieldNot yet held

This field asks for the country of the provider's global operating headquarters, which the ITS notes is usually the country of tax residence. The record does not yet carry a sourced headquarters or parent-control fact for any vendor, so the export leaves it for you to establish rather than filling it from an unsourced catalog flag.

This is deliberately NOT the contracting entity's country. A vendor contracting through an Irish subsidiary of a US parent files the US here — which is exactly why a guess is worse than a blank.

What the record does not answer

Stated plainly, because a mapping that oversells is worse than no mapping when you are the one filing.

Field	What it asks	Why not us
B_05.01.0020	Identification code (LEI or EUID)	Only LEI or EUID may be used for legal persons, and only LEI for legal persons established outside the Union. The record does not hold LEIs.
B_05.01.0110/0120	Ultimate parent undertaking	Mandatory where the provider is not itself the ultimate parent. The record holds neither the parent's identity nor its identification code yet; the parent relationship is the next fact it needs a registry source for.
B_02.01	Contractual arrangement — general information	Reference number, type, currency, annual expense. These are facts about YOUR contract and exist only in your own records.

None of this is advice. Whether an arrangement supports a critical or important function — and therefore whether B_02.02.0120 is mandatory for it — is your determination and not ours. Vannus is not your lawyer.

Getting the answers

The record is free to read: every determined vendor's page carries its contracting entity, governing law and control finding, each quoted and dated. Browse the record.

Where a vendor contracts through more than one entity — twenty-nine of those on record do — B_03.02 needs the entity that signed your arrangement, which depends on where your company is incorporated. The AI Subprocessor Jurisdiction Report resolves that per vendor for your own entity, with the clause attached so you can check the reading.