How do AIMS risk decisions differ from legal classification?
Run two separate decisions. For the AIMS decision, apply documented criteria that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable risk. Identify consequences for the organisation, individuals, and societies; assess realistic likelihood where applicable; determine the risk level; compare it with the criteria; and prioritise treatment. Use the to account for intended use, foreseeable misuse, affected people, deployment context, and applicable jurisdictions.
For an EU AI Act decision, first confirm territorial and material scope under Article 2 and determine the operator role. The Act can reach providers placing systems on the Union market, EU deployers, and certain third-country providers or deployers where output is used in the Union. It excludes specified military, defence, national-security, scientific-research, pre-market research and testing, purely personal non-professional, and some free and open-source circumstances; each exclusion has conditions.
Then test Article 6. The product route requires both an Annex I product or safety-component link and a third-party conformity assessment under the listed product law. The listed-use route requires an intended purpose in , such as recruiting or filtering job applicants, evaluating students, credit scoring of natural persons other than fraud detection, emergency healthcare triage, or specified remote biometric identification. These are examples, and the exact Annex wording and facts control. The amended Article 6(1a)-(1c) clarifies that solely non-safety uses do not qualify as safety components unless failure would endanger health and safety, and third-party assessment solely for non-health-and-safety risks does not satisfy the product-route condition. Check Article 2(2) separately for Annex I Section B products; the amendment moves machinery to that section and provides for sector-specific requirements.
For an use, test the limited Article 6(3) derogation. The system must not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety, or fundamental rights, including by not materially influencing decision-making, and must perform a narrow procedural task, improve a completed human activity, detect patterns without replacing or influencing the completed assessment without proper review, or perform a preparatory task. Profiling of natural persons remains high-risk. A provider relying on the derogation must document the assessment before placing the system on the market or putting it into service and must register it.
Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 entered into force on 27 July 2026. Under the amended Article 113, Chapter III Sections 1-3, except Article 6(5), apply from 2 December 2027 for Article 6(2)/ systems and 2 August 2028 for Article 6(1)/Annex I systems. Record the applicable route, legal text, and effective date in the classification plan. Article 111 contains separate transition rules for existing systems, including specified large-scale IT systems and high-risk systems intended for public-authority use. ISO/IEC 42001 risk and impact work and other applicable law have their own timing.
- Record the AIMS risk level, EU AI Act classification, operator role, scope facts, Article 6 route, Annex entry, assumptions, derogation analysis, and applicable date in separate fields.
- Identify affected people, deployment context, intended use, foreseeable misuse, decision influence, and whether profiling occurs.
- Do not infer legal high-risk status from an internal score, model capability, vendor label, or the fact that a human reviews the output.
- Route residual-risk acceptance and legal classification to their respective owners; neither decision can override binding law.
Citations (3)
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standard page
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clauses 6.1.1-6.1.4 require organisation-specific AI risk criteria, risk assessment, treatment, and impact assessment; the standard does not create the EU AI Act's legal high-risk category.
requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an Artificial Intelligence Management System
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)
Binding EU source for the Article 6 classification test, Annex I and Annex III routes, the limited Article 6(3) exclusion, the Article 111 transition rules, and Article 113 application dates.
- Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 - Digital Omnibus on AI
Amending regulation in force from 27 July 2026. Article 1(40) revises the Chapter III Sections 1-3 application dates; Article 1(39) revises existing-system transition rules. Article 1(8) adds the Article 6 product-safety qualifications; Article 1(2) and (41) address Annex I Section B and machinery.