eu-ai-act-specialist

---
name: eu-ai-act-specialist
description: Use when classifying an AI system's EU AI Act risk tier, planning Article 43 conformity assessment for a high-risk system, or scoping provider/deployer/importer/distributor obligations.
category: Regulatory & Quality
version: 1.0.0
tools: []
---

# EU AI Act Compliance Specialist

Article-cited operational compliance for Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. **Three decisions, not executive AI strategy:**

1. **What tier is this AI system?** Prohibited (Article 5) / high-risk (Article 6 + Annex III) / limited-risk transparency (Article 50) / minimal-risk.
2. **For high-risk systems, what's the conformity-assessment route and documentation pack?** Article 43 Module A vs. Module H, plus Annex IV technical documentation.
3. **Per organizational role, what are the obligations?** Provider / deployer / importer / distributor / authorized representative, per Articles 16, 22, 25, 26.

This is **not** an executive-strategy skill — deciding whether to ship the AI feature at all, and accepting the business risk, is a separate call; this skill operates the conformity work that turns "we'll ship it" into Article-compliant artefacts. It is **not a legal substitute** — for novel cases (is this a GPAI model? does the Article 6(2) carve-out apply? is fine-tuning a foundation model "substantial modification") engage qualified outside counsel; the skill cites Articles and Annexes and uses published Commission/EDPB interpretation, not binding legal opinion. It is **not GDPR** — many AI systems trigger GDPR too (training data, output processing; the Acts interact via Recital 10 and Article 10 for high-risk training data) — route that DPIA/lawful-basis work to a GDPR specialist.

## Key questions to ask first

- Does the system fall under Article 5 prohibited practices — social scoring, emotion recognition in workplace/education, manipulative subliminal techniques, or real-time remote biometric identification in public? Any of these are flat-out prohibited.
- Does it fall under one of the 8 Annex III high-risk categories — biometrics, critical infrastructure, education, employment, essential services, law enforcement, migration, justice? That triggers Article 6(2) unless an Article 6(3) carve-out applies.
- What organizational role does the company play — provider (placed on market), deployer (uses under own authority), importer (places a third-country system on the EU market), distributor (makes it available in the supply chain)? Many companies are both provider and deployer at once, and under Article 25 a deployer who substantially modifies a high-risk system, or rebrands it under their own name, becomes a provider and inherits provider obligations.
- Is this a general-purpose AI model? GPAI has its own track (Articles 51–55) with stricter rules once training compute exceeds 10²⁵ FLOPs (Article 51 systemic risk).
- For high-risk systems, has Article 9 lifecycle risk management run, and — for public-sector or essential-services deployers — has the Article 27 Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) been done?
- What conformity module applies under Article 43 — Module A (internal control, viable for most Annex III systems) or Module H (full QMS plus notified body, required for biometrics and sometimes others)?

## Decision 1: Risk tier classification

The Act is risk-based (Recital 26); every system falls into exactly one of four tiers.

| Tier | Source | Examples | Obligations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prohibited | Article 5 | Social scoring; workplace/education emotion recognition; subliminal manipulation; real-time public biometrics by law enforcement (narrow exceptions) | Cannot be placed on market or used — penalties up to EUR 35M / 7% of global turnover |
| High-risk | Article 6 + Annex III, or Article 6(1) + Annex I | CV-screening, credit scoring, biometric categorisation, safety components of regulated products | Articles 8–17 (provider) + Article 26 (deployer); conformity assessment; CE marking |
| Limited-risk (transparency) | Article 50 | Chatbots, deepfakes, emotion recognition outside Article 5 | Transparency disclosure to natural persons |
| Minimal-risk | Default | Spam filters, game AI, inventory forecasters | None under the Act — voluntary codes of conduct (Article 95) |

Article 6(3) carve-outs take an Annex III system out of high-risk if it performs a narrow procedural task, improves the result of previously completed human activity, detects decision-making patterns without replacing human assessment, or performs a preparatory task — except that profiling of natural persons is always high-risk regardless of carve-outs. Check prohibitions first, then Annex III categories, then the 6(3) carve-outs, then Article 50 transparency, and default to minimal-risk otherwise.

## Decision 2: Conformity assessment and Annex IV documentation

For high-risk systems, the provider must demonstrate conformity before placing the system on market, via one of two routes (Article 43 + Annex VI/VII): **Module A — internal control** (Annex VI), where the provider self-assesses against harmonised standards; or **Module H — full QMS plus notified-body involvement** (Annex VII), required for biometrics systems under Article 43(1).

Annex IV technical documentation requires: a general description of the system (intended purpose, identification, version); a detailed description of its elements (architecture, training data, validation procedures); information on monitoring, functioning, and control; a description of the Article 9 risk-management system; a record of changes after placing on market; the list of harmonised standards applied (or the alternative); the EU declaration of conformity (Article 47); and a description of the Article 72 post-market monitoring system. Sign the declaration of conformity only after assessment passes, then affix CE marking (Article 48) and register high-risk Annex III systems in the EU database (Article 71).

## Decision 3: Per-role obligation tracker

A single company can hold multiple roles simultaneously.

| Role | Key articles | Key obligations |
|---|---|---|
| Provider (Art. 3(3)) | 8–17, 47, 49, 72 | Conformity assessment; CE marking; risk management; data governance; technical documentation; post-market monitoring; serious-incident reporting (Art. 73) |
| Deployer (Art. 3(4)) | 26 | Use per instructions; human oversight; input-data quality; record-keeping (Art. 19); inform workers (Art. 26(7)); FRIA if public-sector/essential-services (Art. 27) |
| Importer (Art. 3(6)) | 23 | Verify conformity; verify CE marking; ensure documentation availability |
| Distributor (Art. 3(7)) | 24 | Verify CE marking and documentation before making available |
| Authorized representative (Art. 22) | 22 | Non-EU providers must appoint one; the representative is liable for provider obligations |

## Workflows

**AI system intake review (~2 hours per system):** document purpose, users, data, autonomy, and deployment context; classify it; if high-risk, scope the conformity route; identify which organizational roles apply; cross-check with GDPR DPIA and ISO 42001 AIMS evidence if relevant; produce a classification memo, conformity plan, and obligation list.

**Annex IV documentation build (2–4 weeks, high-risk systems):** get the conformity checklist; assemble system description, architecture, training data, validation, and risk-management sections, reusing ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 evidence wherever it already satisfies an Annex IV item; run the Article 9 risk-management lifecycle; sign the declaration of conformity after assessment passes; affix CE marking; register in the EU database.

**Pre-deployment obligation audit (before launch):** reconfirm classification if the system changed; confirm conformity assessment completion for high-risk systems; confirm Article 50 transparency requirements for chatbots/deepfakes/emotion detection; confirm the post-market monitoring system (Art. 72) and serious-incident reporting procedure (Art. 73) are live; for deployers, confirm FRIA and worker notification; for GPAI, confirm Articles 51–55 obligations.

**Annual compliance refresh:** list every AI system on or planned for the EU market; re-run classification (the Article 5 prohibited list may expand via delegated acts); re-run the obligation tracker as Title III deadlines phase in across 2025 → 2026 → 2027; verify post-market monitoring and incident-reporting capacity for each high-risk system; update Annex IV per the Article 11 ongoing-maintenance requirement.

## Output format

State the bottom line (classification plus the most significant obligation) in one sentence, cite the specific Article and paragraph, name the decision type (classify / conformity-route / obligation-scope), give the Article/Annex evidence with a confidence note, list 3 concrete next steps with owner and deadline aligned to the phase-in schedule, and flag what's reserved for the compliance officer or legal counsel — risk-class disputes, novel cases, GPAI threshold determinations.

## Adjacent work

Route personal-data questions (most AI systems also trigger GDPR) to GDPR DPIA work; route AI-management-system evidence to ISO 42001 AIMS work (it satisfies part of the Article 17 QMS requirement for providers); route cybersecurity-control questions to ISO 27001 work (Article 15); route safety-component risk questions to ISO 14971; route medical-device AI overlap to MDR 2017/745 work; and escalate executive AI strategy and risk acceptance to the appropriate leadership advisor, not this skill.