Search every question across sub-FAQs

An industry AI use case is high-risk under Annex III only when the AI system is intended to be used for one of the listed Annex III areas or when it separately meets the product safety-component rule in Article 6(1). The Commission FAQ explains that high-risk classification is based on intended purpose: the function performed by the system and the specific purpose and modalities for which it is used.

For industrial teams, that means a predictive-maintenance dashboard, production-quality analytics tool, or internal knowledge assistant is not high-risk merely because it is used in a factory, utility, insurer, bank, or public-sector supplier. The question is whether the intended purpose matches a listed high-risk use case, such as safety components in specified critical infrastructure, recruitment, worker management, creditworthiness, life or health insurance risk assessment and pricing, emergency triage or dispatch, biometric use, education, law enforcement, migration, justice, or democratic processes.

Commission examples and draft classification guidelines can help apply the rule, but they do not add an Annex III category. Record the exact Annex III point, the system's intended purpose, and the deployment facts instead of classifying from an industry label or an example alone.

The practical boundary is not the customer's industry label; it is the legal use case. Annex III covers eight areas: biometrics; critical infrastructure; education and vocational training; employment, workers' management and access to self-employment; access to essential private and public services and benefits; law enforcement; migration, asylum and border control management; and administration of justice and democratic processes.

Industrial uses most often need closer review where the AI affects natural persons or safety-critical infrastructure. Examples include recruitment screening for plant workers, task allocation or performance monitoring based on worker behaviour, credit scoring of natural persons, life or health insurance pricing, emergency-call triage, biometric identification, emotion recognition, or an AI safety component in road traffic, critical digital infrastructure, or water, gas, heating or electricity supply. By contrast, equipment-failure forecasting, inventory planning, energy-use optimisation, document search, or translation may fall outside Annex III if they do not serve a listed intended purpose.

Article 6(3) is an exception to the Annex III rule, not a shortcut around it. It can apply only where an Annex III-referred system does not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety, or fundamental rights, including because it does not materially influence the outcome of decision-making, and at least one of the four listed conditions is fulfilled.

The supported conditions are narrow: a narrow procedural task; improving the result of a previously completed human activity; detecting decision-making patterns or deviations without replacing or influencing the prior human assessment without proper human review; or performing a preparatory task for an Annex III assessment. The exception is not available where the Annex III system performs profiling of natural persons, because Article 6(3) says such systems are always high-risk.

For an Annex III high-risk conclusion, provider evidence should connect the intended purpose to the relevant Annex III point, then show the high-risk system records needed for conformity, traceability, and registration. The Commission FAQ identifies provider obligations before EU market placement or putting into service, including conformity assessment, quality management, and EU database registration.

For an Article 6(3) non-high-risk conclusion, the evidence should be different: it should explain the condition relied on, the grounds for the non-high-risk conclusion, and why the system does not materially influence a decision or otherwise pose significant risk. Annex VIII Section B specifically includes the Article 6(3) condition or conditions and a short summary of the grounds for treating the system as not high-risk.

Track application dates by classification route. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, published on 24 July 2026 and entering into force on 27 July 2026, moves the Chapter III Sections 1 to 3 duties to 2 December 2027 for Article 6(2) Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for Article 6(1) Annex I systems. Article 72 post-market monitoring and Article 73 serious-incident reporting remain on the general 2 August 2026 application date. Record the provision and system route used for each deadline instead of assigning one date to every high-risk duty.

A borderline tool is more likely to be an AI system when it is machine-based, operates with some autonomy, and infers from inputs how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence a physical or virtual environment.

A tool is less likely to be an AI system when it only executes rules defined solely by people, such as fixed validation checks, deterministic routing tables, hard-coded eligibility rules, or ordinary calculations with no learning, reasoning, modelling, or inference beyond basic data processing.

The Commission's AI-system-definition guidelines are interpretive guidance, not an alternative legal definition. Classify the actual system against Article 3(1) and Recital 12, and preserve the technical facts showing whether the system infers how to generate outputs rather than relying on labels such as AI-powered or automated.

Do not collapse a general-purpose AI model and an AI system into the same record. The model is the reusable capability; the AI system is the deployed or supplied system that uses a model to serve an intended purpose. A downstream provider can integrate a GPAI model into an AI system and then have system-level obligations for that integration.

Embedded and product-linked cases need two checks. First, decide whether the AI component itself is an AI system. Second, decide whether Article 6 makes it high-risk because it is a safety component, is itself a covered product, or falls into an Annex III use case.

Territorial scope is not limited to EU-established providers. The Act can apply to providers placing AI systems or GPAI models on the Union market, EU deployers, non-EU providers or deployers whose AI-system output is used in the Union, importers, distributors, product manufacturers, authorised representatives, and affected persons located in the Union.

Role classification is fact-specific and can change after launch. A distributor, importer, deployer, or other third party can become the provider of a high-risk AI system if it puts its name or trademark on the system, substantially modifies it, or changes the intended purpose so that the system becomes high-risk.

Scope exclusions also matter. The Regulation contains specific exclusions for personal non-professional use, certain scientific research and development activity, pre-market research, testing or development that respects applicable Union law, and some free and open-source releases. Those exclusions have conditions and do not create a general exemption for commercial deployment, prohibited practices, high-risk systems, or Article 50 uses.

A defensible classification file should show the same facts a reviewer would need to reach the answer again: the object classified, why it is or is not an AI system, whether it is a GPAI model or a system, the intended purpose, the EU nexus, the operator role, and the high-risk screening result.

For high-risk and near-high-risk cases, align the evidence with Annex IV-style system description fields even if the team is still at classification stage: interactions with other hardware or software, form of supply, product integration, development methods, third-party components, output quality, monitoring, limits, and lifecycle changes.

Providers must design and develop AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons so that the people concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system.

The notice is not required when the interaction is obvious to a reasonably well-informed, observant, and circumspect person in the circumstances and context of use. The direct-interaction duty also has a law-enforcement exception for systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate, or prosecute criminal offences, subject to safeguards, unless the system is available for the public to report a criminal offence.

Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, that generate synthetic audio, image, video, or text content must ensure the outputs are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.

Article 50 frames this as a technical design duty: the marking solution must be effective, interoperable, robust, and reliable as far as technically feasible, taking account of content type, implementation cost, and the generally acknowledged state of the art.

Deployers of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system must inform the natural persons exposed to the operation of the system.

Article 50 also states that personal data must be processed in accordance with the applicable EU data-protection instruments, including the GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, or Directive (EU) 2016/680 depending on the context.

Deployers that use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio, or video content constituting a deep fake must disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated.

Deployers that publish AI-generated or manipulated text for the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest must also disclose that the text has been artificially generated or manipulated, unless the supported human-review and editorial-responsibility exception applies.

The Commission published final guidelines on Article 50 transparency obligations on 20 July 2026. The guidelines explain the Commission's interpretation of scope, definitions, exceptions, timing, and the relationship between the provider and deployer duties. They support implementation but do not replace the Regulation or an authoritative interpretation by the Court of Justice.

The Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content was published on 10 June 2026. It is voluntary and is intended to help signatories demonstrate compliance with the Article 50 duties covered by the code. The Commission published its assessment of the code on 9 July 2026. Keep the binding Article 50 analysis, the final guidelines, and any code commitments as separate evidence.

A useful evidence file separates provider technical marking duties from deployer disclosure duties. It should show the triggering capability, affected natural persons, notice or marking mechanism, timing, accessibility handling, and any exception relied on.

The evidence should be product-specific enough for a reviewer to reproduce the conclusion from the Article 50 text and the actual user or publication experience.

For a high-risk AI system, Article 73 normally requires the provider to report any serious incident to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where the incident occurred. From 27 July 2026, amended Article 75(1a) instead sends reports to the AI Office when the system falls under the AI Office's exclusive supervision. Article 3, point (49), defines a serious incident as an incident or malfunctioning of an AI system that directly or indirectly leads to death or serious harm to health, serious and irreversible disruption of critical infrastructure management or operation, infringement of Union-law obligations protecting fundamental rights, or serious harm to property or the environment.

The provider does not wait for perfect certainty about root cause. The Article 73 clock is tied to awareness of the serious incident and to establishing a causal link between the AI system and the incident, or a reasonable likelihood of that link. A malfunction without one of the Article 3(49) outcomes is not a serious incident under this definition, although it may still trigger monitoring, risk, non-conformity, or corrective-action duties.

Article 73 has sector-specific reporting limits. For Annex III systems whose providers are already subject to equivalent Union reporting duties, the AI Act notification is limited to incidents involving infringement of Union-law obligations protecting fundamental rights. The same limit applies to high-risk AI that is, or is a safety component of, a medical device or in vitro diagnostic device under Regulations (EU) 2017/745 or 2017/746; that report goes to the national competent authority selected by the Member State where the incident occurred.