+Artículo 6 Reglas de clasificación de los sistemas de IA de alto riesgo
---+Artículo 6 1.
---+Article 6 1a.
---+Article 6 1b.
---+Article 6 1c.
---+Artículo 6 2.
---+Artículo 6 3.
---+Artículo 6 4.
---+Artículo 6 5.
---+Artículo 6 6.
---+Artículo 6 7.
---+Artículo 6 8.

Artículo 6 Reglas de clasificación de los sistemas de IA de alto riesgo

-

1. Resumen

,
Artículo 6 1.

Con independencia de si se ha introducido en el mercado o se ha puesto en servicio sin estar integrado en los productos que se mencionan en las letras a) y b), un sistema de IA se considerará de alto riesgo cuando reúna las dos condiciones que se indican a continuación:

a) 

que el sistema de IA esté destinado a ser utilizado como componente de seguridad de un producto que entre en el ámbito de aplicación de los actos legislativos de armonización de la Unión enumerados en el anexo I, o que el propio sistema de IA sea uno de dichos productos, y

b) 

que el producto del que el sistema de IA sea componente de seguridad con arreglo a la letra a), o el propio sistema de IA como producto, deba someterse a una evaluación de la conformidad de terceros para su introducción en el mercado o puesta en servicio con arreglo a los actos legislativos de armonización de la Unión enumerados en el anexo I.
Article 6 1a.
For the purposes of this Regulation, including paragraph 1 of this Article, AI systems that are solely used for non-safety related aspects of user assistance, performance optimisation, service efficiency, automation or convenience or quality control shall not qualify as safety components.
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).
Artículo 6 2.
Además de los sistemas de IA de alto riesgo a que se refiere el apartado 1, también se considerarán de alto riesgo los sistemas de IA contemplados en el anexo III.
Artículo 6 3.
No obstante lo dispuesto en el apartado 2, un sistema de IA a que se refiere el anexo III no se considerará de alto riesgo cuando no plantee un riesgo importante de causar un perjuicio a la salud, la seguridad o los derechos fundamentales de las personas físicas, también al no influir sustancialmente en el resultado de la toma de decisiones.

El párrafo primero se aplicará cuando se cumpla cualquiera de las condiciones siguientes:

a) 

que el sistema de IA esté destinado a realizar una tarea de procedimiento limitada;

b) 

que el sistema de IA esté destinado a mejorar el resultado de una actividad humana previamente realizada;

c) 

que el sistema de IA esté destinado a detectar patrones de toma de decisiones o desviaciones con respecto a patrones de toma de decisiones anteriores y no esté destinado a sustituir la valoración humana previamente realizada sin una revisión humana adecuada, ni a influir en ella, o

d) 

que el sistema de IA esté destinado a realizar una tarea preparatoria para una evaluación que sea pertinente a efectos de los casos de uso enumerados en el anexo III.

No obstante lo dispuesto en el párrafo primero, los sistemas de IA a que se refiere el anexo III siempre se considerarán de alto riesgo cuando el sistema de IA efectúe la elaboración de perfiles de personas físicas.
Artículo 6 4.
El proveedor que considere que un sistema de IA contemplado en el anexo III no es de alto riesgo documentará su evaluación antes de que dicho sistema sea introducido en el mercado o puesto en servicio. Dicho proveedor estará sujeto a la obligación de registro establecida en el artículo 49, apartado 2. A petición de las autoridades nacionales competentes, el proveedor facilitará la documentación de la evaluación.
Artículo 6 5.
La Comisión, previa consulta al Consejo Europeo de Inteligencia Artificial (en lo sucesivo, «Consejo de IA»), y a más tardar el 2 de febrero de 2026, proporcionará directrices que especifiquen la aplicación práctica del presente artículo en consonancia con el artículo 96, junto con una lista exhaustiva de ejemplos prácticos de casos de uso de sistemas de IA que sean de alto riesgo y que no sean de alto riesgo.
Artículo 6 6.
La Comisión estará facultada para adoptar actos delegados con arreglo al artículo 97 al objeto de modificar el apartado 3, párrafo segundo, del presente artículo, añadiendo nuevas condiciones a las establecidas en dicho apartado, o modificando estas, cuando existan pruebas concretas y fiables de la existencia de sistemas de IA que entren en el ámbito de aplicación del anexo III, pero que no planteen un riesgo importante de causar un perjuicio a la salud, la seguridad o los derechos fundamentales de las personas físicas.
Artículo 6 7.
La Comisión adoptará actos delegados con arreglo al artículo 97 al objeto de modificar el apartado 3, párrafo segundo, del presente artículo, suprimiendo cualquiera de las condiciones establecidas en él, cuando existan pruebas concretas y fiables de que es necesario para mantener el nivel de protección de la salud, la seguridad y los derechos fundamentales previsto en el presente Reglamento.
Artículo 6 8.
Ninguna modificación de las condiciones establecidas en el apartado 3, párrafo segundo, adoptada de conformidad con los apartados 6 y 7 del presente artículo, reducirá el nivel global de protección de la salud, la seguridad y los derechos fundamentales previsto en el presente Reglamento, y cualquier modificación garantizará la coherencia con los actos delegados adoptados con arreglo al artículo 7, apartado 1, y tendrá en cuenta la evolución tecnológica y del mercado.

1.1 Referencias

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Estándares relacionados

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Estándares relacionados

Estándares
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.