Chapter III · High-risk AI systems
Article 43 — Conformity assessment
Official text
Each paragraph records where its wording comes from. Only text reproduced unchanged from the Official Journal is authentic; consolidated text is editorial and has no legal value. Paragraphs, subparagraphs and points each have their own link.
For high-risk AI systems listed in point 1 of Annex III, where, in demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2, the provider has applied harmonised standards referred to in Article 40, or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, the provider shall opt for one of the following conformity assessment procedures based on:
In demonstrating the compliance of a high-risk AI system with the requirements set out in Section 2, the provider shall follow the conformity assessment procedure set out in Annex VII where:
- (a)
the internal control referred to in Annex VI; or
- (b)
the assessment of the quality management system and the assessment of the technical documentation, with the involvement of a notified body, referred to in Annex VII.
- (a)
harmonised standards referred to in Article 40 do not exist, and common specifications referred to in Article 41 are not available;
- (b)
the provider has not applied, or has applied only part of, the harmonised standard;
- (c)
the common specifications referred to in point (a) exist, but the provider has not applied them;
- (d)
one or more of the harmonised standards referred to in point (a) has been published with a restriction, and only on the part of the standard that was restricted.
For the purposes of the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII, the provider may choose any of the notified bodies. However, where the high-risk AI system is intended to be put into service by law enforcement, immigration or asylum authorities or by Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, the market surveillance authority referred to in Article 74(8) or (9), as applicable, shall act as a notified body.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
For high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III, providers shall follow the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control as referred to in Annex VI, which does not provide for the involvement of a notified body.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
For high-risk AI systems covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, the provider of the system shall follow the relevant conformity assessment procedure as required in accordance with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation. The requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter shall apply to those high-risk AI systems and shall be part of that assessment. Assessment of the quality management system set out in Article 17 shall also be undertaken, and points 3, 4.3, 4.4. and 4.5, the fifth paragraph of point 4.6 and point 5 of Annex VII shall apply.amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
For the purposes of that conformity assessment, notified bodies which have been notified under the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I shall have the power to assess the conformity of high-risk AI systems with the requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter, provided that the compliance of those notified bodies with the requirements laid down in Article 31(4), (5), (10) and (11) has been assessed in the context of the notification procedure in accordance with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation, which is evidenced through the assessment as part of the existing notification. Without prejudice to Article 28, such notified bodies which have been notified under the Union harmonisation legislation in Section A of Annex I, shall apply for designation in accordance with Section 4 of this Chapter by 28 January 2028.amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
Where Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I provides the product manufacturer with an option to rely on a conformity assessment that does not involve a third-party, provided that that manufacturer has applied harmonised standards to ensure compliance with all the relevant requirements, that manufacturer may use that option only if it has also applied harmonised standards or, where applicable, common specifications referred to in Article 41, covering all requirements set out in Section 2 of this Chapter. The classification of a product as a high-risk AI system in accordance with Article 6(1) does not affect the choice of the conformity assessment procedure provided to the manufacturers of products covered by Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, including, where applicable, an option to rely on harmonised standards. The manufacturers of such products are not required to choose a conformity assessment procedure involving third-party conformity assessment only because the product includes a high-risk AI system as a safety component, if this is not required by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I.amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
Where a high-risk AI system is both covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I and it falls within one of the categories listed in Annex III, the provider of that system shall follow the relevant conformity assessment procedure as required pursuant to the relevant Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I.amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
Consolidated text — no legal value · amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744
High-risk AI systems that have already been subject to a conformity assessment procedure shall undergo a new conformity assessment procedure in the event of a substantial modification, regardless of whether the modified system is intended to be further distributed or continues to be used by the current deployer.
For high-risk AI systems that continue to learn after being placed on the market or put into service, changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance that have been pre-determined by the provider at the moment of the initial conformity assessment and are part of the information contained in the technical documentation referred to in point 2(f) of Annex IV, shall not constitute a substantial modification.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 in order to amend Annexes VI and VII by updating them in light of technical progress.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 97 in order to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article in order to subject high-risk AI systems referred to in points 2 to 8 of Annex III to the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Annex VII or parts thereof. The Commission shall adopt such delegated acts taking into account the effectiveness of the conformity assessment procedure based on internal control referred to in Annex VI in preventing or minimising the risks to health and safety and protection of fundamental rights posed by such systems, as well as the availability of adequate capacities and resources among notified bodies.
Authentic — as published in the Official Journal
The formal analysis of Article 43
Article 6 is formalised first. The remaining articles follow.
Article 43 is formalised node by node: each rule as a deontic position with its operator, each exception with its rank, each predicate resolved against the definitions in Article 3.
What members get, per article
- the rule logic: every norm as a formal position, with the defeater chain that decides which exception wins
- the competency questions and their answers, every unanswered one marked as a gap and named
- the ontology: predicates bound to AISV (AI Standardisation Vocabulary) and to the definitions they depend on, exportable as JSON-LD and OWL
- the documentation: the Article 6(4) assessment record generated from a fact set, with its derivation and the version of the law it was decided against
Built for providers claiming the 6(3) derogation, for the counsel who has to defend that claim, and for the auditor who reads it afterwards.
Access is invite-only and opening in stages. Article 6 is formalised first; the remaining articles follow.
No mail client? Write to hello@signatu.com
Already a member? Sign in
Commentary in preparation
The official text above is complete. The editorial layer for this article — duties, the roles bound by them, the AISV concepts that model them, and the European standards written to support them — is in preparation, in the same form as the articles already published.
See the published articles