+Člen 6 Pravila razvrstitve za visokotvegane sisteme UI
---+Člen 6 1.
---+Člen 6 1a.
---+Člen 6 1b.
---+Člen 6 1c.
---+Člen 6 2.
---+Člen 6 3.
---+Člen 6 4.
---+Člen 6 5.
---+Člen 6 6.
---+Člen 6 7.
---+Člen 6 8.

Člen 6 Pravila razvrstitve za visokotvegane sisteme UI

-

1. Pregled

,
Člen 6 1.

Ne glede na to, ali je sistem UI dan na trg ali v uporabo neodvisno od proizvodov iz točk (a) in (b), se ta sistem UI šteje za visokotvegani, kadar sta izpolnjena oba naslednja pogoja:

(a) 

sistem UI je namenjen uporabi kot varnostna komponenta proizvoda ali pa je sam sistem UI proizvod, ki ga zajema harmonizacijska zakonodaja Unije iz Priloge I;

(b) 

za proizvod, katerega varnostna komponenta na podlagi točke (a) je sistem UI, ali za sistem UI, ki je sam proizvod, je treba opraviti ugotavljanje skladnosti s strani tretje osebe zaradi dajanja tega proizvoda na trg ali v uporabo na podlagi harmonizacijske zakonodaje Unije iz Priloge I.
Člen 6 1a.
Za namene te uredbe, vključno z odstavkom 1 tega člena, se sistemi UI, ki se uporabljajo izključno za vidike, ki niso povezani z varnostjo, kot so pomoč uporabnikom, optimizacija zmogljivosti, učinkovitost storitev, avtomatizacija, priročnost ali nadzor kakovosti, ne štejejo za varnostne komponente.
Člen 6 1b.
Ne glede na odstavek 1a se sistemi UI, katerih okvara ali nepravilno delovanje bi ogrozilo zdravje in varnost, štejejo za varnostne komponente.
Člen 6 1c.
Za proizvod, za katerega se zahteva ugotavljanje skladnosti s strani tretje osebe zgolj zaradi tveganj, ki niso tveganja za zdravje in varnost, zlasti tveganj v zvezi z distribucijo radiofrekvenčnega spektra ali elektromagnetnimi motnjami, ki ne vplivajo na zdravje in varnost, se ne šteje, da izpolnjuje pogoj iz odstavka 1, točka (b).
Člen 6 2.
Poleg visokotveganih sistemov UI iz odstavka 1 za visokotvegane sisteme UI štejejo tudi sistemi UI iz Priloge III.
Člen 6 3.
Z odstopanjem od odstavka 2 sistem UI iz Priloge III ne šteje za visokotvegan, kadar ne predstavlja znatnega tveganja škode za zdravje, varnost ali temeljne pravice fizičnih oseb, tudi s tem, da ne vpliva bistveno na izid odločanja.

Prvi pododstavek se uporablja, kadar je izpolnjen kateri koli od naslednjih pogojev:

(a) 

sistem UI naj bi opravljal omejeno postopkovno nalogo;

(b) 

namen sistema UI je izboljšati rezultat predhodno zaključene človeške dejavnosti;

(c) 

sistem UI je namenjen odkrivanju vzorcev odločanja ali odstopanj od predhodnih vzorcev odločanja in ni namenjen nadomeščanju ali vplivanju na predhodno dokončano človeško oceno brez ustreznega človeškega pregleda ali

(d) 

sistem UI je namenjen izvedbi pripravljalne naloge za oceno, ki je pomembna za namene primerov uporabe iz Priloge III.

Ne glede na prvi pododstavek sistem UI iz Priloge III vedno šteje za visokotvegan, kadar izvaja oblikovanje profila fizičnih oseb.
Člen 6 4.
Ponudnik, ki meni, da sistem UI iz Priloge III ne pomeni visokega tveganja, dokumentira svojo oceno, preden se ta sistem da na trg ali v uporabo. Za takega ponudnika velja obveznost registracije iz člena 49(2). Ponudnik na zahtevo pristojnih nacionalnih organov predloži dokumentacijo o oceni.
Člen 6 5.
Komisija po posvetovanju z Evropskim odborom za umetno inteligenco (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Odbor) in najpozneje do 2. februarja 2026 zagotovi smernice, v katerih določi praktično izvajanje tega člena v skladu s členom 96, skupaj s celovitim seznamom praktičnih primerov uporabe visokotveganih sistemov UI in sistemov UI brez visokega tveganja.
Člen 6 6.
Na Komisijo se prenese pooblastilo za sprejemanje delegiranih aktov v skladu s členom 97, da bi spremenila odstavek 3, drugi pododstavek, tega člena, s tem da bi k tam določenim pogojem dodala nove pogoje ali jih spremenila, kadar obstajajo konkretni in zanesljivi dokazi o obstoju sistemov UI, ki spadajo na področje uporabe Priloge III, vendar ne predstavljajo znatnega tveganja škode za zdravje, varnost ali temeljne pravice fizičnih oseb.
Člen 6 7.
Komisija sprejme delegirane akte v skladu s členom 97, da bi spremenila kateri koli pogoj iz odstavka 3, drugi pododstavek, tega člena, s črtanjem katerih koli tam določenih pogojev, kadar obstajajo konkretni in zanesljivi dokazi, da je to potrebno za ohranjanje ravni varovanja zdravja, varnosti in temeljnih pravic iz te uredbe.
Člen 6 8.
Nobena sprememba pogojev iz odstavka 3, drugi pododstavek, sprejeta v skladu z odstavkoma 6 in 7 tega člena, ne zmanjša splošne ravni varovanja zdravja, varnosti in temeljnih pravic iz te uredbe ter zagotovi skladnost z delegiranimi akti, sprejetimi na podlagi člena 7(1), ter upošteva tržni in tehnološki razvoj.

1.1 Sklici

1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve

1.3 Povezani standardi

2. Ugotovljene zahteve

Zahteve

3. Povezani standardi

Standardi
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.