+6 artikla Suuririskisten tekoälyjärjestelmien luokitussäännöt
---+6 artikla 1.
---+Article 6 1a.
---+Article 6 1b.
---+Article 6 1c.
---+6 artikla 2.
---+6 artikla 3.
---+6 artikla 4.
---+6 artikla 5.
---+6 artikla 6.
---+6 artikla 7.
---+6 artikla 8.

6 artikla Suuririskisten tekoälyjärjestelmien luokitussäännöt

-

1. Yleiskatsaus

,
6 artikla 1.

Riippumatta siitä, saatetaanko tekoälyjärjestelmä markkinoille tai otetaanko se käyttöön erillään a ja b alakohdassa tarkoitetuista tuotteista, kyseistä tekoälyjärjestelmää on pidettävä suuririskisenä, jos molemmat seuraavista edellytyksistä täyttyvät:

a) 

tekoälyjärjestelmä on tarkoitettu käytettäväksi tuotteen turvakomponenttina tai tekoälyjärjestelmä on itse tuote, joka kuuluu liitteessä I luetellun unionin yhdenmukaistamislainsäädännön soveltamisalaan;

b) 

tuotteelle, jonka turvakomponentti on a alakohdan mukaisesti tekoälyjärjestelmä, tai tekoälyjärjestelmälle, joka on itse tuote, on tehtävä kolmannen osapuolen suorittama vaatimustenmukaisuuden arviointi kyseisen tuotteen saattamiseksi markkinoille tai käyttöön ottamiseksi liitteessä I luetellun unionin yhdenmukaistamislainsäädännön mukaisesti.
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).
6 artikla 2.
Edellä 1 kohdassa tarkoitettujen suuririskisten tekoälyjärjestelmien lisäksi liitteessä III tarkoitettuja tekoälyjärjestelmiä pidetään suuririskisinä.
6 artikla 3.
Poiketen siitä, mitä 2 kohdassa säädetään, liitteessä III tarkoitettua tekoälyjärjestelmää ei ole pidettävä suuririskisenä, jos se ei aiheuta merkittävää vahingon riskiä luonnollisten henkilöiden terveydelle, turvallisuudelle tai perusoikeuksille, mukaan lukien se, että se ei vaikuta olennaisesti päätöksenteon tulokseen.

Ensimmäistä alakohtaa sovelletaan, jos mikä tahansa seuraavista edellytyksistä täyttyy:

a) 

tekoälyjärjestelmän tarkoituksena on suorittaa suppea menettelyllinen tehtävä;

b) 

tekoälyjärjestelmän tarkoituksena on parantaa aiemmin suoritetun ihmisen toiminnan tulosta;

c) 

tekoälyjärjestelmän tarkoituksena on havaita päätöksentekotapoja tai poikkeamia aiemmista päätöksentekotavoista, eikä sen tarkoituksena ole korvata aiemmin tehtyä ihmisen tekemää arviota tai vaikuttaa siihen ilman asianmukaista ihmisen suorittamaa arviota; tai

d) 

tekoälyjärjestelmä on tarkoitettu suorittamaan valmistelutehtävä, joka koskee liitteessä III lueteltujen käyttötapausten kannalta merkityksellistä arviointia.

Sen estämättä, mitä ensimmäisessä alakohdassa säädetään, liitteessä III tarkoitettua tekoälyjärjestelmää on aina pidettävä suuririskisenä, jos tekoälyjärjestelmä suorittaa luonnollisten henkilöiden profilointia.
6 artikla 4.
Tarjoajan, joka katsoo, että liitteessä III tarkoitettu tekoälyjärjestelmä ei ole suuririskinen, on dokumentoitava arvionsa ennen kuin kyseinen järjestelmä saatetaan markkinoille tai otetaan käyttöön. Tällaiseen tarjoajaan sovelletaan 49 artiklan 2 kohdassa säädettyä rekisteröintivelvollisuutta. Tarjoajan on kansallisten toimivaltaisten viranomaisten pyynnöstä toimitettava arviointia koskevat asiakirjat.
6 artikla 5.
Komissio antaa Euroopan tekoälyneuvostoa, jäljempänä ”tekoälyneuvosto”, kuultuaan ja viimeistään 2 päivänä helmikuuta 2026 ohjeet, joissa täsmennetään tämän artiklan käytännön täytäntöönpano 96 artiklan mukaisesti, sekä kattavan luettelon käytännön esimerkeistä sellaisten tekoälyjärjestelmien käyttötapauksista, jotka ovat suuririskisiä ja muita kuin suuririskisiä.
6 artikla 6.
Siirretään komissiolle valta antaa delegoituja säädöksiä 97 artiklan mukaisesti tämän artiklan 3 kohdan toisen alakohdan muuttamiseksi lisäämällä uusia ehtoja kyseisessä alakohdassa säädettyihin edellytyksiin tai muuttamalla niitä, jos on konkreettista ja luotettavaa näyttöä sellaisten tekoälyjärjestelmien olemassaolosta, jotka kuuluvat liitteen III soveltamisalaan mutta jotka eivät aiheuta merkittävää vahingon riskiä luonnollisten henkilöiden terveydelle, turvallisuudelle tai perusoikeuksille.
6 artikla 7.
Komissio antaa delegoituja säädöksiä 97 artiklan mukaisesti tämän artiklan 3 kohdan toisen alakohdan muuttamiseksi poistamalla jonkin siinä säädetyn edellytyksen, jos on konkreettista ja luotettavaa näyttöä siitä, että tämä on tarpeen tässä asetuksessa säädetyn terveyden, turvallisuuden ja perusoikeuksien suojelun tason säilyttämiseksi.
6 artikla 8.
Tämän artiklan 6 ja 7 kohdan mukaisesti hyväksytyt, 3 kohdan toisessa alakohdassa säädettyihin edellytyksiin tehtävät muutokset eivät saa heikentää tässä asetuksessa säädetyn terveyden, turvallisuuden ja perusoikeuksien suojelun yleistä tasoa, ja niillä on varmistettava johdonmukaisuus 7 artiklan 1 kohdan nojalla annettujen delegoitujen säädösten kanssa ja otettava huomioon markkinoiden ja teknologian kehityksen.

1.1 Viittaukset

1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset

1.3 Liittyvät standardit

2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset

Vaatimukset

3. Liittyvät standardit

Standardit
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.