The European Commission published draft guidelines on high-risk AI classification on 19 May 2026. Use the High-Risk Classification Router first if you have not yet selected the Annex I, Annex III, or Article 6(3) review path. This page is only for building a working Article 6(3) filter record after an Annex III route is in scope. It is draft-guidance-based operational triage, not legal advice.
Use Article 6(3) as a record-building filter, not a shortcut.
The practical question is not “can we label this exempt?” The practical question is whether the system's task, profiling status, decision influence, and human assessment boundary can be documented clearly enough for review.
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.
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.
Keep the system name, intended purpose, Annex III area, profiling answer, material-influence answer, task-type rationale, human assessment note, vendor evidence status, reviewer name, review date, and a written explanation of why the filter rationale appears strong, weak, or incomplete.
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 and European Commission draft high-risk classification guidelines published on 19 May 2026. Last reviewed: 20 May 2026. Use qualified legal, privacy, security, or sector counsel for final decisions.