+Artigo 6.o Regras para a classificação de sistemas de IA de risco elevado
---+Artigo 6.o 1.
---+Article 6 1a.
---+Article 6 1b.
---+Article 6 1c.
---+Artigo 6.o 2.
---+Artigo 6.o 3.
---+Artigo 6.o 4.
---+Artigo 6.o 5.
---+Artigo 6.o 6.
---+Artigo 6.o 7.
---+Artigo 6.o 8.

Artigo 6.o Regras para a classificação de sistemas de IA de risco elevado

-

1. Visão geral

,
Artigo 6.o 1.

Independentemente de a colocação no mercado ou a colocação em serviço de um sistema de IA ser feita separadamente dos produtos a que se referem as alíneas a) e b), esse sistema de IA é considerado de risco elevado sempre que se estejam preenchidas ambas as seguintes condições:

a) 

O sistema de IA destina-se a ser utilizado como um componente de segurança de um produto ou o sistema de IA é, ele próprio, um produto abrangido pelos atos enumerados na lista da legislação de harmonização da União constante do anexo I;

b) 

O produto cujo componente de segurança nos termos da alínea a) é o sistema de IA, ou o próprio sistema de IA enquanto produto, tem de ser sujeito a uma avaliação da conformidade por terceiros com vista à sua colocação no mercado ou colocação em serviço nos termos dos atos enumerados na lista da legislação de harmonização da União constante do 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).
Artigo 6.o 2.
Além dos sistemas de IA de risco elevado a que se refere o n.o 1, os sistemas de IA a que se refere o anexo III são também considerados de risco elevado.
Artigo 6.o 3.
Em derrogação do n.o 2, um sistema de IA a que se refere o Anexo III não pode ser considerado de risco elevado se não representar um risco significativo de danos para a saúde, a segurança ou os direitos fundamentais das pessoas singulares, nomeadamente se não influenciarem de forma significativa o resultado da tomada de decisões.

O primeiro parágrafo aplica-se nos casos em que estiverem preenchidas quaisquer das seguintes condições:

a) 

O sistema de IA destina-se a desempenhar uma tarefa processual restrita;

b) 

O sistema de IA destina-se a melhorar o resultado de uma atividade humana previamente concluída;

c) 

O sistema de IA destina-se a detetar padrões de tomada de decisões ou desvios em relação a padrões de tomada de decisões anteriores e não se destina a substituir nem influenciar uma avaliação humana previamente concluída, sem que se proceda a uma verificação adequada por um ser humano; ou

d) 

O sistema de IA destina-se a executar uma tarefa preparatória no contexto de uma avaliação pertinente para efeitos dos casos de utilização enumerados no anexo III.

Não obstante o primeiro parágrafo, os sistemas de IA a que se refere o anexo III devem ser sempre considerados de risco elevado nos casos em que executarem a definição de perfis de pessoas singulares.
Artigo 6.o 4.
Um prestador que considere que um dos sistemas de IA a que se refere o anexo III não é de risco elevado deve documentar a sua avaliação antes de esse sistema ser colocado no mercado ou colocado em serviço. Esse prestador está sujeito à obrigação de registo prevista no artigo 49.o, n.o 2. A pedido das autoridades nacionais competentes, o prestador deve facultar a documentação da avaliação.
Artigo 6.o 5.
Após consulta do Comité Europeu para a Inteligência Artificial («Comité»), e o mais tardar até 2 de fevereiro de 2026, a Comissão disponibiliza orientações que especifiquem a aplicação prática do presente artigo em conformidade com o artigo 96.o, juntamente com uma lista exaustiva de exemplos práticos de casos de utilização de sistemas de IA de risco elevado e de risco não elevado.
Artigo 6.o 6.
A Comissão fica habilitada a adotar atos delegados os termos do artigo 97.o para alterar o n.o 3, segundo parágrafo, do presente artigo no que diz respeito a aditar novas condições para além das que aí se encontram previstas, ou a alterar essas condições, se existirem provas concretas e fiáveis da existência de sistemas de IA que sejam abrangidos pelo âmbito de aplicação do anexo III mas não apresentem um risco significativo de danos para a saúde, a segurança ou os direitos fundamentais das pessoas singulares.
Artigo 6.o 7.
A Comissão adota atos delegados nos termos do artigo 97.o no que diz respeito à alteração do n.o 3, segundo parágrafo, do presente artigo, para suprimir qualquer uma das condições aí previstas, caso existam provas concretas e fiáveis de que tal é necessário para manter o nível de proteção da saúde, da segurança e dos direitos fundamentais previsto no presente regulamento.
Artigo 6.o 8.
Qualquer alteração às condições estabelecidas no n.o 3, segundo parágrafo, adotadas nos termos dos n.os 6 e 7 do presente artigo, não pode diminuir o nível geral de proteção da saúde, da segurança e dos direitos fundamentais previsto no presente regulamento e assegura a coerência com os atos delegados adotados nos termos do artigo 7.o, n.o 1, e tem em conta a evolução tecnológica e do mercado.

1.1 Referências

1.2 Requisitos identificados

1.3 Normas relacionadas

2. Requisitos identificados

Requisitos

3. Normas relacionadas

Normas
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.