Determine and record, for each AI system, whether it is high-risk. A system is high-risk where it is intended to be used as a safety component of, or is itself, a product covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I and that product must undergo third-party conformity assessment, or where it falls within an Annex III use case. Where the provider concludes that an Annex III system is not high-risk because it performs only a narrow procedural task, improves the result of a previously completed human activity, detects decision patterns without replacing or influencing human assessment, or performs a preparatory task, that assessment must be documented before the system is placed on the market or put into service and produced to authorities on request. A system that performs profiling of natural persons is always high-risk and the derogation is not available to it.
This control maps to 12 controls across 6 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
EU AI Act EUAI-Art.6 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of EU AI Act your existing evidence covers. Hold ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and 17 of 43 EU AI Act controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 12 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.