Consolidated Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, is binding law. Article 6(3) applies only to a system referred to in Annex III and material influence is only one part of its cumulative test. The Article 6(2)/Annex III route applies from 2 December 2027. Draft Commission guidance published on 19 May 2026 remains draft, non-binding and non-exhaustive.
Check whether the AI output steers the decision.
Use this subordinate tool only after an Annex III route has been identified or is being assessed. Map the complete workflow first. A lower result does not establish non-high-risk status, and the provider still needs the complete Article 6(3) assessment. Use redacted facts and do not enter sensitive, personal, privileged, or production data.
If the result confirms or cannot exclude material influence in an Annex III use case, continue to the High-Risk Deployer Guide.
Material influence questions
Use this page to clarify one part of the Article 6(3) filter record.
Material influence means the AI output may shape a meaningful human decision through ranking, scoring, recommendation, exclusion, prioritisation, or strong flagging. The evaluator is an operational evidence heuristic for one part of Article 6(3), not a statutory score or legal classification. A lower result does not establish non-high-risk status or Article 6(3) eligibility.
No. Human review is not enough by itself. Check whether the human can make an independent substantive assessment, override the AI output normally, document the override, and avoid rubber-stamping it. Even a lower-influence result leaves the four statutory task conditions, wider significant-risk test, and provider obligations unresolved.
Ask what the AI output does before the human decision and whether the complete workflow is mapped. Check ranking, filtering, flagging, scoring or pre-selection, visibility before decision, override and separability. A preparatory-task label is only one statutory condition and does not replace the profiling rule or wider significant-risk test.
No. Use this subordinate tool only after an Annex III route has been identified or is being assessed. It examines material influence only. The provider's complete Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) assessment remains necessary, and unknown Annex III status should be routed through the High-Risk Classification Router.
Retain the complete workflow boundary, output type, affected decision, human visibility, override process, separability, profiling and consequence notes, reviewer, vendor evidence and final decision owner. Attach the note to the Article 6(3) record. If a provider relies on Article 6(3), the Article 6(4) assessment and Article 49(2) registration still remain necessary.
Source basis: Binding law: consolidated Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Articles 6(2) to 6(4), 49(2) and 113, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. Draft, non-binding guidance: Commission draft high-risk classification guidelines, published 19 May 2026 and updated 23 July 2026. Draft examples are non-exhaustive and are not encoded as binding rules. The Article 6(2)/Annex III route applies from 2 December 2027. Last reviewed: 4 September 2026. This page is educational only and is not a legal classification or Article 6(4) provider assessment.