+Articolo 6 Regole di classificazione per i sistemi di IA ad alto rischio
---+Articolo 6 1.
---+Article 6 1a.
---+Article 6 1b.
---+Article 6 1c.
---+Articolo 6 2.
---+Articolo 6 3.
---+Articolo 6 4.
---+Articolo 6 5.
---+Articolo 6 6.
---+Articolo 6 7.
---+Articolo 6 8.

Articolo 6 Regole di classificazione per i sistemi di IA ad alto rischio

-

1. Panoramica

,
Articolo 6 1.

A prescindere dal fatto che sia immesso sul mercato o messo in servizio indipendentemente dai prodotti di cui alle lettere a) e b), un sistema di IA è considerato ad alto rischio se sono soddisfatte entrambe le condizioni seguenti:

a) 

il sistema di IA è destinato a essere utilizzato come componente di sicurezza di un prodotto, o il sistema di IA è esso stesso un prodotto, disciplinato dalla normativa di armonizzazione dell'Unione elencata nell'allegato I;

b) 

il prodotto, il cui componente di sicurezza a norma della lettera a) è il sistema di IA, o il sistema di IA stesso in quanto prodotto, è soggetto a una valutazione della conformità da parte di terzi ai fini dell'immissione sul mercato o della messa in servizio di tale prodotto ai sensi della normativa di armonizzazione dell'Unione elencata nell'allegato 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).
Articolo 6 2.
Oltre ai sistemi di IA ad alto rischio di cui al paragrafo 1, sono considerati ad alto rischio anche i sistemi di IA di cui all'allegato III.
Articolo 6 3.
In deroga al paragrafo 2, un sistema di IA di cui all’allegato III non è considerato ad alto rischio se non presenta un rischio significativo di danno per la salute, la sicurezza o i diritti fondamentali delle persone fisiche, anche nel senso di non influenzare materialmente il risultato del processo decisionale.

Il primo comma si applica quando è soddisfatta almeno una qualsiasi delle condizioni seguenti:

a) 

il sistema di IA è destinato a eseguire un compito procedurale limitato;

b) 

il sistema di IA è destinato a migliorare il risultato di un'attività umana precedentemente completata;

c) 

il sistema di IA è destinato a rilevare schemi decisionali o deviazioni da schemi decisionali precedenti e non è finalizzato a sostituire o influenzare la valutazione umana precedentemente completata senza un'adeguata revisione umana; o

d) 

il sistema di IA è destinato a eseguire un compito preparatorio per una valutazione pertinente ai fini dei casi d'uso elencati nell'allegato III.

Fatto salvo il primo comma, un sistema di IA di cui all'allegato III è sempre considerato ad alto rischio qualora esso effettui profilazione di persone fisiche.
Articolo 6 4.
Un fornitore che ritiene che un sistema di IA di cui all'allegato III non sia ad alto rischio ne documenta la valutazione prima che tale sistema sia immesso sul mercato oppure messo in servizio. Tale fornitore è soggetto all'obbligo di registrazione di cui all'articolo 49, paragrafo 2. Su richiesta delle autorità nazionali competenti, il fornitore mette a disposizione la documentazione relativa alla valutazione.
Articolo 6 5.
Dopo aver consultato il consiglio europeo per l'intelligenza artificiale («consiglio per l'IA»), ed entro il 2 febbraio 2026, la Commissione fornisce orientamenti che specificano l'attuazione pratica del presente articolo in linea con l'articolo 96, insieme a un elenco esaustivo di esempi pratici di casi d'uso di sistemi di IA ad alto rischio e non ad alto rischio.
Articolo 6 6.
Alla Commissione è conferito il potere di adottare atti delegati in conformità dell'articolo 97 al fine di modificare il paragrafo 3, secondo comma, del presente articolo aggiungendo nuove condizioni a quelle ivi stabilite, oppure modificandole, qualora vi siano prove concrete e affidabili dell'esistenza di sistemi di IA che rientrano nell'ambito di applicazione dell'allegato III ma non presentano un rischio significativo di danno per la salute, la sicurezza o i diritti fondamentali delle persone fisiche.
Articolo 6 7.
La Commissione adotta atti delegati in conformità dell'articolo 97 al fine di modificare il paragrafo 3, secondo comma, del presente articolo sopprimendo qualsiasi condizione ivi stabilita, qualora vi siano prove concrete e affidabili che è necessario al fine di mantenere il livello di protezione della salute, della sicurezza e dei diritti fondamentali previsto dal presente regolamento.
Articolo 6 8.
Eventuali modifiche alle condizioni di cui al paragrafo 3, secondo comma, adottate in conformità dei paragrafi 6 e 7 del presente articolo non riducono il livello globale di protezione della salute, della sicurezza e dei diritti fondamentali nell'Unione previsto dal presente regolamento e garantiscono la coerenza con gli atti delegati adottati a norma dell'articolo 7, paragrafo 1, e tengono conto degli sviluppi tecnologici e del mercato.

1.1 Riferimenti

1.2 Requisiti identificati

1.3 Standard correlati

2. Requisiti identificati

Requisiti

3. Standard correlati

Standard
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.