ai-act-classification

Classifying an AI system under the EU AI Act requires role, intended-use, data provenance, and risk management inputs to evaluate obligations across prohibited practices, high-risk Annex I/III, transparency duties, and GPAI models.

A FRIA assessment is needed for high-risk EU AI Act classifications when specified fundamental rights impacts are triggered. It evaluates risk management and data governance obligations to ensure compliance for sensitive deployments.

Yes, the EU AI Act applies distinct obligations for GPAI models under Articles 51–56, separating them from high-risk Annex I/III classifications. GPAI evaluations focus on model-level transparency duties rather than specific deployment use cases.

Determining EU AI Act compliance obligations requires inputs covering the stakeholder role (provider, deployer, importer, or distributor), intended-use, data provenance, and risk management documentation to accurately map applicable articles.

Checking limited-risk transparency duties involves evaluating your AI feature against EU AI Act Article 50. This classification process requires intended-use inputs to determine if obligations apply before product release.

Mapping EU AI Act obligations requires a multi-gate classification workflow evaluating deployer, provider, importer, and distributor roles. This process outputs explicit article citations and suggested artifacts like risk management and data governance documentation.