Article 6(3) is part of current law. The Commission draft guidelines published on 19 May 2026 provide non-exhaustive interpretive examples and remain under consultation until 23 July 2026. Providers relying on Article 6(3) must document the assessment before placing the system on the market or putting it into service and must register under Article 49(2). Deployers and procurement reviewers should retain their own use-case record and request the provider assessment; this tool does not create a substitute legal assessment.
Use Article 6(3) as a record-building filter, not a shortcut.
The practical question is not “can we label this exempt?” It is whether the provider can support the Article 6(3) conditions with a documented Article 6(4) assessment, while the deployer separately records its actual use case and vendor evidence.
Task type
Record whether the AI system performs a narrow procedural task, preparatory task, post-human improvement, or pattern detection. Broad evaluation or scoring needs escalation.
Material influence
Record whether the output ranks, scores, excludes, recommends, prioritises, or otherwise shapes a meaningful decision about a person.
Profiling and evidence
Record whether profiling is involved and whether vendor instructions, intended purpose, logs, and oversight evidence support the claimed boundary.
Build the Article 6(3) filter decision record.
Use redacted facts. Do not enter personal data, trade secrets, employee records, patient data, privileged legal advice, production credentials, or client-confidential information.
Use the result in the right sequence.
If the record confirms or cannot exclude high-risk status, continue to the High-Risk Deployer Guide.
Article 6(3) filter questions
These answers are designed for working records and vendor review, not final legal determinations.
No. The Article 6(3) Filter Decision Record gives an operational triage record, not a legal exemption decision. Use the output to document assumptions, evidence gaps, vendor questions, and review owners before qualified legal or regulatory review.
Use the Article 6(3) filter record after an AI system has been routed near an Annex III high-risk use case and you need to test whether the task may be narrow, procedural, preparatory, post-human improvement, or pattern detection without material decision influence.
Profiling is a serious escalation signal for Article 6(3) filter review. If the system profiles natural persons, do not rely on a filter rationale without legal and privacy review, vendor documentation, and a clear record of the system's intended purpose and actual workflow.
Providers should retain the Article 6(4) assessment, intended purpose, Annex III area, task rationale, profiling and material-influence analysis, evidence reviewed, reviewer and date, plus Article 49(2) registration evidence. Deployers should retain the use-case record and the provider evidence request and response.
The High-Risk Classification Router identifies whether an AI system should be reviewed through Annex I, Annex III, or the Article 6(3) filter path. This page is the next record-building step when the router result indicates possible Article 6(3) filter review.
This tool is designed to run the assessment logic in your browser. Do not enter confidential, personal, client-sensitive, privileged, trade-secret, employee, patient, credential, or production data. Use working names, internal IDs, or redacted summaries for internal review.
Source basis: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Article 6(3) and 6(4), Article 49(2), and European Commission draft high-risk classification guidelines published on 19 May 2026. The consultation closes 23 July 2026 and the examples remain draft and non-exhaustive. Last reviewed: 23 June 2026. Use qualified legal, privacy, security, or sector counsel for final decisions.