WHAT EXACTLY IS THE AI SYSTEM?
Start by defining the system boundary, intended purpose, model dependencies, product integration, version, deployment context, and what decisions or outputs the system can produce.
IS YOUR AI SYSTEM
HIGH-RISK, TRANSPARENCY-BOUND, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
Before building a compliance program, classify the actual system. EU AI Act obligations depend on intended purpose, operator role, product context, use case, territorial scope and the facts supporting each classification route.
CHECK MY AI SYSTEM — FREE →START EVIDENCE PASSPORT · $19/MO →SEE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER CLASSIFICATION →
BOUNDARYThis page is educational and operational guidance. It is not legal advice, certification, conformity assessment or regulatory approval.
CURRENT SOURCE ANCHOR
OPEN OFFICIAL EU SOURCE ↗European Commission · Navigating the AI Act and High-Risk Classification Guidance
The Commission describes the AI Act as risk-based and confirms that only a limited set of systems are classified as high-risk. Current Commission guidance supports practical Article 6 classification, but the Regulation itself remains the controlling legal text.
WHAT BUSINESSES NEED TO ESTABLISH
Do not start with a generic checklist.
Start with the actual system, role, use case and evidence boundary. The same regulation can produce different obligations for different actors and systems.
WHAT ROLE DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE?
Determine whether you are acting as provider, deployer, importer, distributor, product manufacturer, GPAI provider, or another operator. Different roles carry different duties.
WHICH RISK OR OBLIGATION ROUTE APPLIES?
Check prohibited practices, high-risk routes under Article 6 and Annex I/III, transparency duties under Article 50, GPAI obligations, and other relevant system-specific requirements.
WHAT FACTS SUPPORT THE CLASSIFICATION?
Preserve the evidence supporting intended purpose, actor role, use case, exclusions, customer context, product category, and any Article 6(3) assessment. Classification should be reviewable, not just asserted.
THE TA-14 OPERATING ROUTE
Turn the question into a governed record.
The goal is not merely to reach an answer. It is to preserve what facts, evidence, scope and limitations supported that answer at that time.
Identify the real system and intended purpose
Do not classify a vendor name or a generic technology category. Classify the actual AI system as placed on the market or used in the organization.
Determine operator role and territorial scope
Establish who develops, brands, places, imports, distributes or deploys the system and whether the EU AI Act’s territorial scope is engaged.
Test the relevant regulatory routes
Evaluate prohibited-use rules, Article 6 high-risk criteria, Annex III use cases, Article 50 transparency obligations, GPAI layers and any applicable exclusions or special conditions.
Preserve the classification basis and revalidate it
Keep the facts, evidence, version and source state that support the result. Re-run classification after material changes to intended purpose, model, workflow, authority, market exposure or legal guidance.
READY TO OPERATE · START PAID ACCESS NOW
Move from reading about the EU AI Act to maintaining the record.
Choose the smallest operating tier that fits the portfolio today. Upgrade when system count, team size or governance scope actually requires it.
Evidence Passport
$19/MOKeep a living system-level evidence record with obligations, gaps, versions and revalidation state.
START EVIDENCE PASSPORT →Compliance Workspace
$49/MOCoordinate evidence, owners, documentation, incidents and team compliance work in one governed workspace.
START COMPLIANCE WORKSPACE →Governance Pro
$99/MOOperate broader high-risk, GPAI, FRIA, post-market and material-change governance across a growing portfolio.
START GOVERNANCE PRO →Institution
$499/MORun institutional governance with expanded users, authority workflows, examiner rooms and portfolio reporting.
START INSTITUTION →Need an independent human readiness examination?A governed readiness review is separate from software access and starts at $750.
REQUEST READINESS REVIEW →Not ready to subscribe? Classify first.
Use the free classifier to establish the system, intended purpose, possible actor role, EU exposure and unresolved facts. When continuing evidence infrastructure is needed, paid access begins at $19 per month. Independent human readiness review remains a separate service.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Questions businesses are asking now.
How does the EU AI Act classify AI systems?
The Act uses a risk-based and obligation-based structure. Some practices are prohibited, some systems are high-risk under Article 6 and Annex I or Annex III, some are subject to transparency obligations, and many systems carry limited or minimal regulatory burden under the Act.
Is every AI system either high-risk or low-risk?
No. The practical classification is more nuanced. A system may be prohibited for a particular use, high-risk, subject mainly to transparency duties, affected by GPAI obligations at another layer, or fall outside those categories while still being subject to other legal duties.
What are the two main high-risk routes?
Article 6 identifies high-risk systems connected to certain regulated products in Annex I and systems used for certain sensitive purposes listed in Annex III. The Commission has also published current guidance and examples to support practical classification.
Can an Annex III system ever be treated as not high-risk?
In limited circumstances, yes. Article 6(3) provides conditions under which some Annex III systems may not be considered high-risk where they do not pose a significant risk of harm. Providers relying on that route must document the assessment before market placement or putting into service.
Can a chatbot still have EU AI Act obligations if it is not high-risk?
Yes. Article 50 transparency obligations can apply to certain systems that interact directly with people or generate or manipulate content, independently of high-risk classification.
Does the TA-14 classifier provide a legal determination?
No. It provides a structured governance classification pathway based on the facts supplied. It does not replace legal advice, conformity assessment, certification or regulatory authority.