Scope reminder
Confirmed law Article 6(2) refers to the intended-purpose use cases listed under the eight Annex III area headings. A sector or area label alone does not make every system in that sector high-risk.
Statutory date Annex III high-risk rules apply from 2 December 2027. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 is in force, and the classification logic and any Article 6(3) analysis must be read from the consolidated AI Act.
This page is an initial intended-purpose checklist. It helps identify a potential Annex III route and the next evidence step; it does not make a legal classification determination.
The eight Annex III areas
Annex III is organised under eight area headings. Each contains listed intended-purpose use cases; the heading itself is not a blanket classification of every system in the sector:
- Biometrics
- Critical infrastructure
- Education and vocational training
- Employment, workers management, and access to self-employment
- Access to essential private and public services
- Law enforcement
- Migration, asylum, and border control management
- Administration of justice and democratic processes
Map the provider's stated intended purpose and the actual deployment to the precise listed use case. If the match is uncertain, use the classification router and retain the uncertainty rather than inferring high-risk status from an industry label.
Where mid-market firms usually get caught
- Employment: check whether the intended purpose matches the listed recruitment, selection, work-decision, task-allocation, monitoring or evaluation uses.
- Essential services: distinguish the listed public-benefit, creditworthiness, life and health insurance pricing, and emergency-service uses from other sector functions.
- Education: check the listed access, admission, assignment, learning-outcome, level-assessment and examination uses rather than the education label alone.
- Biometrics: check Article 5 first, then match the intended purpose to the precise Annex III biometric use and its exclusions.
Do not skip the Article 6(3) derogation review
Article 6(3) is a narrow derogation for a system already referred to in Annex III. It requires no significant risk of harm, including no material influence on decision-making, and at least one statutory task condition. An Annex III system that performs profiling of natural persons remains high-risk and cannot rely on Article 6(3). The provider makes and documents the formal Article 6(4) assessment and registers under Article 49(2). A deployer may review that evidence against actual use and escalate discrepancies, but does not replace the provider's assessment.
What high-risk classification triggers
For a high-risk system, the provider addresses the requirements in Articles 8 to 15 and the applicable conformity-assessment route. The deployer addresses its operational duties under Article 26 and conducts a FRIA only where Article 27 applies. A deployer should obtain provider evidence and compare it with the actual deployment rather than treating provider duties as its own conformity assessment.
Use this page correctly
Use this checklist to identify potential Annex III candidates, then document the classification and control workflow. Do not use this page as a legal determination.
Use the High-Risk Classification Router to assess Article 6 routes. If an Annex III route is identified, continue with the High-Risk Deployer Guide. For an Article 6(3) scenario, use the Filter Decision Record.
About the author: Abhishek G Sharma is the founder of Move78. He holds ISO 42001 Lead Auditor, CISA, CISM, CRISC, and CEH certifications. He brings over 20 years of practitioner experience in cybersecurity, AI governance, and enterprise risk management.
Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for binding compliance decisions. Last updated: 4 September 2026.