+Член 6 Правила за класифициране на системи с ИИ като високорискови
---+Член 6 1.
---+Член 6 1a.
---+Article 6 1b.
---+Article 6 1c.
---+Член 6 2.
---+Член 6 3.
---+Член 6 4.
---+Член 6 5.
---+Член 6 6.
---+Член 6 7.
---+Член 6 8.

Член 6 Правила за класифициране на системи с ИИ като високорискови

-

1. Преглед

,
Член 6 1.

Без оглед на това дали дадена система с ИИ се пуска на пазара или се пуска в действие независимо от продуктите, посочени в букви а) и б), тази система с ИИ се счита за високорискова, когато са изпълнени следните две условия:

a) 

системата с ИИ е предназначена да се използва като защѝтен елемент на продукт или самата система с ИИ е продукт, попадащ в обхвата на законодателството на Съюза за хармонизация, посочено в приложение I;

б) 

продуктът, чийто защѝтен елемент съгласно буква а) е системата с ИИ, или самата система с ИИ като продукт трябва да премине оценяване на съответствието от трето лице с оглед на пускането на пазара или пускането в действие на посочения продукт в съответствие със законодателството на Съюза за хармонизация, посочено в приложение I.
Член 6 1a.
За целите на настоящия регламент, включително параграф 1 от настоящия член, системите с ИИ, които се използват единствено за несвързани с безопасността аспекти на подпомагането на ползвателите, оптимизирането на работата, ефективността на услугите, автоматизацията или удобството или контрола на качеството, не се определят като защитни елементи.
Article 6 1b.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1a, AI systems the failure or malfunctioning of which would endanger health and safety shall qualify as safety components.
Article 6 1c.
A product that is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment solely due to risks other than risks to health and safety, in particular risks relating to the distribution of radio spectrum or electromagnetic interference that do not affect health and safety, shall not be considered as fulfilling the condition in paragraph 1, point (b).
Член 6 2.
В допълнение към високорисковите системи с ИИ, посочени в параграф 1, за високорискови се считат и системите с ИИ, посочени в приложение III.
Член 6 3.
Чрез дерогация от параграф 2, система с ИИ, посочена в приложение III, не се счита за високорискова, ако не представлява значителен риск от увреждане на здравето, безопасността или основните права на физическите лица, включително като не оказва съществено влияние върху резултата от вземането на решения.

Първа алинея се прилага, когато е изпълнено някое от следните условия:

a) 

системата с ИИ е предназначена да изпълнява точно формулирана процедурна задача;

б) 

системата с ИИ е предназначена да подобри резултата от извършена преди това човешка дейност;

в) 

системата с ИИ е предназначена да открива модели за вземане на решения или отклонения от предходни модели за вземане на решения и не е предназначена да замени или повлияе на направената преди това човешка оценка, без да бъде извършен подходящ преглед от човек; или

г) 

системата с ИИ е предназначена да изпълнява подготвителна задача с оглед на извършването на оценка, която е от значение за целите на случаите на използване, посочени в приложение III.

Независимо от първа алинея, система с ИИ, посочена в приложение III, винаги се счита за високорискова, когато извършва профилиране на физически лица.
Член 6 4.
Доставчик, който счита, че дадена система с ИИ, посочена в приложение III, не е високорискова, документира своята оценка, преди тази система да бъде пусната на пазара или пусната в действие. За такъм доставчик се прилага задължението за регистрация, установено в член 49, параграф 2. При поискване от националните компетентни органи доставчикът предоставя документацията за оценката.
Член 6 5.
Комисията, след консултация с Европейския съвет по изкуствен интелект (наричан по-долу „Съветът по ИИ“) и не по-късно от 2 февруари 2026 г., дава насоки, с които конкретизира практическото прилагане на настоящия член в съответствие с член 96, заедно с изчерпателен списък с практически примери за случаи на употреба на системи с ИИ, които са високорискови, и такива, които не са високорискови.
Член 6 6.
На Комисията се предоставя правомощието да приема делегирани актове в съответствие с член 97 за изменение на параграф 3, втора алинея от настоящия член чрез добавяне на нови условия към установените в посочената разпоредба или за изменението им, когато има конкретни и достоверни доказателства за наличието на системи с ИИ, които попадат в обхвата на приложение III, но не пораждат значителен риск от увреждане на здравето, безопасността или основните права на физическите лица.
Член 6 7.
Комисията приема делегирани актове в съответствие с член 97 за изменение на параграф 3, втора алинея от настоящия член чрез заличаване на някое от условията, установени в посочената разпоредба, когато има конкретни и достоверни доказателства, че това е необходимо за поддържането на равнището на защита на здравето, безопасността и основните права, предвидено в настоящия регламент.
Член 6 8.
Приетите в съответствие с параграфи 6 и 7 от настоящия член изменения на условията, установени в параграф 3, втора алинея, не може да намаляват общото равнище на защита на здравето, безопасността и основните права, предвидено в настоящия регламент, трябва да осигуряват съгласуваност с делегираните актове, приети съгласно член 7, параграф 1, и да са съобразени с пазарното и технологичното развитие.

1.1 Препратки

1.2 Идентифицирани изисквания

1.3 Свързани стандарти

2. Идентифицирани изисквания

Изисквания

3. Свързани стандарти

Стандарти
SCF AI & Autonomous Technologies High Risk Designations

Description

Mechanisms exist to designate Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT) "High Risk" if one (1), or more, of the following criteria are met:
(1) AAT is used as a safety component of a product or service;
(2) AAT poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights; and/or
(3) AAT materially influences the outcome of an individual's decision making.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Document criteria for high-risk AI use and review before deployment

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ AI risk classification checklist with high-risk criteria

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal AI risk classification policy
∙ High-risk designation process

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ AI risk management framework with formal high-risk designation process
∙ Risk committee review

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise AI risk classification framework
∙ Automated risk scoring
∙ Legal/compliance review for high-risk AI
∙ Regulatory compliance mapping (e.g., EU AI Act)

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 Well Defined

Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to designate AAT "High Risk" if one(1), or more, of the following criteria are met:
(1) AAT is used as a safety component of a product or service;
(2) AAT poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights; and/or
(3) AAT materially influences the outcome of an individual's decision making.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
SCF High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization

Description

Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Asset Management (AST) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset Management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AST domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.