Draft Commission guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems
These draft European Commission guidelines support providers, deployers, and market surveillance authorities in assessing whether an AI system should be classified as high-risk under the EU AI Act. The document interprets key classification concepts and provides practical examples of AI systems that should or should not be classified as high-risk under both product safety legislation and Annex III use cases. It aims to facilitate the uniform application and effective enforcement of Article 6 of the AI Act.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
AI providers, deployers, and market surveillance authorities should read this to understand how to correctly classify high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act.
What the document contains
The document covers the interpretation of high-risk AI classification concepts under Article 6 of the EU AI Act, detailing scenarios involving products governed by EU harmonization legislation and specific use cases across various domains.
The text does not provide final adopted rules, as it is a draft open for stakeholder feedback, nor does it contain comprehensive technical standards for every specific industry.
- The guidelines assist in assessing whether an AI system qualifies as high-risk under Article 6 of the EU AI Act.
- The text provides practical examples of AI systems that should or should not be classified as high-risk.
- High-risk classification applies to safety components of products covered by EU harmonization legislation requiring third-party conformity assessment, or specific use cases listed in Annex III.
- The practical examples provided are non-exhaustive and subject to updates over time.
· Section I: General principles · Section III: AI systems as safety components of products under Annex I · Section IV: AI systems falling into use cases under Annex III
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
The Guidelines set out the Commission’s interpretation of certain concepts that are relevant for classification purposes
Paragraph 1
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
1/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
facilitating the uniform application and effective enforcement of Article 6 AI Act
Paragraph 1
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
1/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
assessing whether an AI system should be classified as high-risk
Paragraph 1
screening score · 2026-10-23