Map each designated core platform service to the DMA obligations that must be implemented, evidenced, reported, and kept under review.
Use the matrix to connect designation evidence, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligation columns, product owners, Article 11 report annexes, and reopening gates.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
Build the matrix one designated at a time. Each row should name the service listed in the Commission designation decision, then map the Articles 5, 6, and 7 obligations, accountable owners, source evidence, material, and review triggers. This is a Sorena workflow, not a Commission-prescribed matrix; the Regulation, designation decision, and any Commission specification or enforcement decision control. A company-level compliance status cannot show which obligation applies to which service.
The DMA matrix should begin with the core platform services listed in the Commission designation materials. Article 3 says the designation decision lists the relevant core platform services, and Article 3(10) ties the Articles 5, 6 and 7 compliance obligation to the listed CPS.
Create one row per listed CPS and record the gatekeeper, case identifier, Article 2 CPS category, product owner, legal owner, engineering owner, evidence owner, and Article 11 annex location. Do not merge separate CPS rows just because the same corporate group owns them.
The matrix should have obligation columns, not a generic compliance status column. Articles 5 and 6 each state that the gatekeeper must comply with the obligations in that Article with respect to each listed CPS, but the Article 11 template also expects a reasoned explanation where a specific obligation cannot by nature apply to the relevant CPS.
For every CPS row, mark each obligation as applicable, not applicable by nature, specification requested, implemented, blocked, or under remediation. Each status needs a cited reason and an evidence pointer.
A policy that says 'compliant' does not complete an obligation cell. The Article 11 template asks for a compliance statement plus an exhaustive explanation, supporting data, internal documents, implementation timing, product and geographic scope, technical changes, user-experience changes, remuneration and terms changes, consultations, testing, indicators, and relevant data.
Treat each Article 5, 6 or 7 cell as a mini evidence package. The evidence should let a reader reconstruct what changed, why the change addresses the obligation, which CPS it covers, and how effectiveness is monitored.
Reopen the matrix when the legal designation changes, the product changes, or the evidence no longer demonstrates effective compliance. Article 4 allows the Commission to reconsider, amend, or repeal a designation decision, and the Commission's gatekeeper portal records additions and removals from the designated service list.
Review gates should be concrete enough for product and compliance teams to operate without waiting for an annual reporting cycle.
Sorena can help structure DMA CPS rows, obligation statuses, product-owner evidence, non-applicability reasons, and Article 11 annex material using the public sources cited here.
Ask questions tied to cited sources about DMA CPS designations, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 report fields, and interoperability evidence.
Check whether each CPS row has designation evidence, product ownership, obligation status, Article 11 artifacts, and review gates.
"supporting data and internal documents"
"Meta was undesignated"
"structured timeline for handling interoperability requests"
"update that report and that non-confidential summary"