+Artikkel 6 Suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemide liigitamise reeglid
---+Artikkel 6 1.
---+Artikkel 6 1a.
---+Artikkel 6 1b.
---+Artikkel 6 1c.
---+Artikkel 6 2.
---+Artikkel 6 3.
---+Artikkel 6 4.
---+Artikkel 6 5.
---+Artikkel 6 6.
---+Artikkel 6 7.
---+Artikkel 6 8.

Artikkel 6 Suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemide liigitamise reeglid

-

1. Ülevaade

,
Artikkel 6 1.

Olenemata sellest, kas tehisintellektisüsteem lastakse turule või võetakse kasutusse punktides a ja b osutatud toodetest sõltumatult, peetakse seda tehisintellektisüsteemi suure riskiga süsteemiks, kui täidetud on mõlemad järgmised tingimused:

a) 

tehisintellektisüsteem on mõeldud kasutamiseks toote turvakomponendina või tehisintellektisüsteem on ise toode, mis on hõlmatud I lisas loetletud liidu ühtlustamisõigusaktidega;

b) 

toode, mille turvakomponent tehisintellektisüsteem vastavalt punktile a on, või tehisintellektisüsteem ise kui toode peab läbima kolmanda isiku tehtava vastavushindamise, et selle saaks turule lasta või kasutusele võtta vastavalt I lisas loetletud liidu ühtlustamisõigusaktidele.
Artikkel 6 1a.
Käesoleva määruse, sealhulgas käesoleva artikli lõike 1 kohaldamisel ei kvalifitseeru turvakomponentideks tehisintellektisüsteemid, mida kasutatakse üksnes kasutajaabi, etteaste optimeerimise, teenuse tõhususe, automatiseerimise või mugavuse või kvaliteedikontrolli ohutusega mitteseotud aspektides.
Artikkel 6 1b.
Olenemata lõikest 1a loetakse turvakomponentideks tehisintellektisüsteemid, mille tõrge või talitlushäire ohustaks tervist ja ohutust.
Artikkel 6 1c.
Toodet, mille puhul on nõutav kolmanda isiku tehtav vastavushindamine üksnes muude riskide kui tervisele ja ohutusele tulenevate riskide tõttu, milleks on eelkõige raadiospektri levitamisega seotud riskid või elektromagnetilised häired, mis ei mõjuta tervist ja ohutust, ei käsitata lõike 1 punktis b sätestatud tingimusele vastavana.
Artikkel 6 2.
Lisaks lõikes 1 osutatud suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemidele peetakse suure riskiga süsteemideks ka III lisas osutatud tehisintellektisüsteeme.
Artikkel 6 3.
Erandina lõikest 2 ei peeta III lisas osutatud tehisintellektisüsteemi suure riskiga süsteemiks, kui see ei ohusta oluliselt füüsiliste isikute tervist, ohutust või põhiõigusi, sealhulgas ei mõjuta oluliselt otsuste tegemise tulemust.

Esimest lõiget kohaldatakse siis, kui on täidetud ükskõik milline järgmistest tingimustest:

a) 

tehisintellektisüsteem on ette nähtud täitma kitsast menetlusülesannet;

b) 

tehisintellektisüsteem on ette nähtud parandama varem lõpetatud inimtegevuse tulemusi;

c) 

tehisintellektisüsteem on ette nähtud tuvastama otsustuste tegemise mustreid või kõrvalekaldeid varasematest otsustusmustritest ning see ei ole mõeldud varem lõpetatud inimhinnangu asendamiseks või mõjutamiseks ilma nõuetekohase inimkontrollita, või

d) 

tehisintellektisüsteem on ette nähtud III lisas loetletud kasutusjuhtumite puhul asjakohase hindamise ettevalmistava ülesande täitmiseks.

Olenemata esimesest lõigust käsitatakse III lisas osutatud tehisintellektisüsteemi alati suure riskiga tehisintellektisüsteemina, kui tehisintellektisüsteem teeb füüsiliste isikute profiilianalüüsi.
Artikkel 6 4.
Pakkuja, kes leiab, et III lisas osutatud tehisintellektisüsteem ei ole suure riskiga, dokumenteerib oma hinnangu enne selle süsteemi turule laskmist või kasutusele võtmist. Sellise pakkuja suhtes kohaldatakse artikli 49 lõikes 2 sätestatud registreerimiskohustust. Riigi pädevate asutuste taotluse korral esitab pakkuja hindamise dokumendid.
Artikkel 6 5.
Komisjon esitab pärast konsulteerimist Euroopa tehisintellekti nõukojaga (edaspidi „nõukoda“) ja hiljemalt 2. veebruariks 2026 suunised, milles täpsustatakse käesoleva artikli praktilist rakendamist kooskõlas artikliga 96, koos põhjaliku loeteluga nii suure riskiga kui ka muude tehisintellektisüsteemide kasutusjuhtumite praktiliste näidete kohta.
Artikkel 6 6.
Komisjonil on õigus võtta kooskõlas artikliga 97 vastu delegeeritud õigusakte, et muuta käesoleva artikli lõike 3 teist lõiku, lisades selles sätestatud tingimustele uusi tingimusi või neid muuta, kui on konkreetseid ja usaldusväärseid tõendeid selliste tehisintellektisüsteemide olemasolu kohta, mis kuuluvad III lisa kohaldamisalasse, kuid ei kujuta endast märkimisväärset ohtu füüsiliste isikute tervisele, ohutusele või põhiõigustele.
Artikkel 6 7.
Komisjon võtab kooskõlas artikliga 97 vastu delegeeritud õigusaktid, et muuta käesoleva artikli lõike 3 teist lõiku, jättes välja kõik selles sätestatud tingimused, kui on olemas konkreetsed ja usaldusväärsed tõendid selle kohta, et see on vajalik käesolevas määruses sätestatud tervise, ohutuse ja põhiõiguste kaitse taseme säilitamiseks.
Artikkel 6 8.
Ükski lõike 3 teises lõigus sätestatud tingimuste muudatus, mis on vastu võetud käesoleva artikli lõigete 6 ja 7 kohaselt, ei tohi vähendada käesolevas määruses sätestatud tervise, ohutuse ja põhiõiguste kaitse üldist taset ning peab tagama järjepidevuse kooskõlas artikli 7 lõike 1 kohaselt vastu võetud delegeeritud õigusaktidega ning võtma arvesse turu ja tehnoloogia arengut.

1.1 Viited

1.2 Tuvastatud nõuded

1.3 Seotud standardid

2. Tuvastatud nõuded

Nõuded

3. Seotud standardid

Standardid
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.