# Article 6(3) Not-High-Risk Assessment: [AI system] [version]

> Documented assessment by a provider that an AI system falling within
> an Annex III area is not high-risk under Article 6(3) of the EU
> Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as amended by
> Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, the Digital Omnibus on AI), with the
> Article 6(4) documentation duty and the Article 49(2) registration
> in the EU database. It records the Annex III area, the profiling
> check, the condition relied on, the significant-risk reasoning, the
> evidence, and the triggers for reassessment. Replace every
> `[bracketed]` value and every row marked *Example*. Under the amended
> Article 113, Chapter III Sections 1 to 3 apply from 2 December 2027
> for Annex III systems; the Commission published draft classification
> guidelines on 19 May 2026. Check the consolidated text and the final
> guidelines. This is a documentation format, not legal advice: check
> the current official text and a qualified professional.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Use it only when a system falls in an Annex III area and you, as
  provider, believe it does not pose a significant risk of harm to
  health, safety or fundamental rights. If the system is high-risk
  under Article 6(1) (Annex I products), Article 6(3) does not help.
- Answer section 3 (profiling) first. A system that profiles natural
  persons is always high-risk, whatever condition it meets.
- One condition in Article 6(3)(a) to (d) must apply, and the system
  must also not materially influence the outcome of decisions. Write
  the reasoning for both, with evidence.
- Article 6(4) requires the assessment to be documented before the
  system is placed on the market or put into service, and handed to
  national competent authorities on request. Article 80 lets market
  surveillance authorities re-evaluate it, and misclassification to
  avoid the high-risk requirements can lead to fines.
- Practitioners commenting on the draft guidelines read the Article
  6(3) filter narrowly. Use the final guidelines once adopted and
  record the version you relied on in Document control.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Tie the assessment to one system version and intended purpose. A change in either requires a new assessment. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [EXA-001] |
| Provider | [Legal name, address] |
| AI system and version | [Name, version] |
| Intended purpose (as stated in documentation) | [One sentence] |
| AI system inventory ID | [AIS-ID] |
| Guidance relied on | [Commission guidelines under Article 6(5), version and date] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / Approved / Registered / Superseded] |
| Owner | [@product-owner] |
| Assessors | [@regulatory-lead], [@legal], [@ml-lead], [@fundamental-rights-expert] |
| Approved before placing on market | [Yes], YYYY-MM-DD |
| EU database registration reference | [Reference] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory lead | [@name] | [Approve / Reject: treat as high-risk] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Legal counsel | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Accountable executive | [@name] | [Decision] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | First draft |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Approved; registered under Article 49(2) |
| 1.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Reassessed after proposed rank-based slot feature (section 7) |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep aligned with the headings below. -->

1. [System description](#1-system-description)
2. [Annex III area](#2-annex-iii-area)
3. [Profiling check](#3-profiling-check)
4. [Condition relied on (Article 6(3)(a) to (d))](#4-condition-relied-on-article-63a-to-d)
5. [Significant risk and material influence](#5-significant-risk-and-material-influence)
6. [Registration and documentation duties](#6-registration-and-documentation-duties)
7. [Reassessment triggers](#7-reassessment-triggers)
8. [Conclusion](#8-conclusion)
9. [Glossary and references](#9-glossary-and-references)

## 1. System description

<!-- Guidance: Describe what the system actually does, its inputs and outputs, and where its output goes. Assess the intended purpose, but check that the design does not invite uses beyond it. -->

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Function | *Example:* CRV Schedule Assist by Tarnwick Analytics proposes interview time slots for candidates a recruiter has already chosen to invite |
| Inputs | *Example:* Recruiter and interviewer calendars, candidate-stated availability, room bookings |
| Outputs | *Example:* Three proposed slots per candidate, sent after recruiter confirmation |
| Who uses the output | *Example:* Recruiters and candidates |
| Decisions it feeds | *Example:* None about suitability; only the time of an interview already decided by a human |
| Data not used | *Example:* CV content, application answers, scores from CRV Shortlist or any other ranking |

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  R["Recruiter decides to invite"] --> S["Schedule Assist proposes slots"]
  C["Calendars and availability"] --> S
  S --> Q["Recruiter confirms"]
  Q --> N["Candidate picks a slot"]
```

## 2. Annex III area

<!-- Guidance: Name the Annex III point the system falls within, and why. If it does not fall within any point, Article 6(3) is not needed: record that conclusion in the intake instead. -->

| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Annex III point | *Example:* Point 4(a), AI systems intended for recruitment or selection of natural persons |
| Reason it falls within the area | *Example:* The system is part of the recruitment process and is marketed to recruiters |
| Annex I product? | [No] |
| Same provider's other systems in the process | *Example:* CRV Shortlist 2.4, which is treated as high-risk and documented separately |

## 3. Profiling check

<!-- Guidance: Article 6(3) ends with an override: an Annex III system that performs profiling of natural persons, within the meaning of GDPR Article 4(4), is always high-risk. Profiling means automated processing of personal data to evaluate personal aspects, in particular to analyse or predict performance at work, economic situation, health, preferences, interests, reliability, behaviour, location or movements. -->

| Question | Answer | Reasoning and evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Does the system process personal data? | [Yes / No] | *Example:* Yes, names, contact details and availability |
| Does it evaluate personal aspects of a person? | [Yes / No] | *Example:* No. It matches free time; it does not assess the candidate |
| Does it analyse or predict behaviour, reliability, preferences or performance? | [Yes / No] | *Example:* No. Slot order is by earliest date, not by predicted attendance |
| Could configuration options turn it into profiling? | [Yes / No] | *Example:* No; no option to weight candidates. Section 7 lists features that would change this |
| Profiling result | [Profiling / No profiling] | If profiling: stop, the system is high-risk |

## 4. Condition relied on (Article 6(3)(a) to (d))

<!-- Guidance: Mark the condition or conditions relied on, and explain in concrete terms. The four conditions are summarised below in original wording. Rely on the strongest one; listing all four weakens the record. -->

| Ref | Condition (summarised) | Relied on? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | The system performs a narrow procedural task | [Yes / No] | *Example:* Yes. It converts a decision already taken (invite) into a calendar slot; it has no effect on whether the person is invited or selected |
| (b) | The system improves the result of a human activity already completed | [Yes / No] | *Example:* No |
| (c) | The system detects decision patterns or deviations from earlier patterns, is not meant to replace or influence the completed human assessment, and is subject to proper human review | [Yes / No] | *Example:* No |
| (d) | The system performs a preparatory task to an assessment relevant to an Annex III use case | [Yes / No] | *Example:* No. Scheduling follows the assessment, it does not prepare it |

Evidence:

| ID | Evidence | Location |
|---|---|---|
| EV-01 *(Example)* | Functional specification showing inputs and outputs | Spec SA-SPEC-3 |
| EV-02 *(Example)* | Data flow diagram showing no link to ranking scores | Architecture record AR-11 |
| EV-03 *(Example)* | Test showing slot proposals do not vary with application content | Test report TR-45 |

## 5. Significant risk and material influence

<!-- Guidance: Meeting a condition is necessary but the system must also not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety or fundamental rights, including by not materially influencing the outcome of decision-making. Consider indirect effects, such as unequal access to slots. -->

| ID | Possible harm | Rights concerned | Assessment | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H-01 *(Example)* | Candidates with caring duties get fewer convenient slots | Non-discrimination | Low: candidates state their own availability and may request other times | "None of these times work" option always shown |
| H-02 *(Example)* | Missed interview due to scheduling error affects outcome | Non-discrimination, good administration | Low: the error affects timing, recruiter can reschedule | Rescheduling link in every message |
| H-03 *(Example)* | Accessibility needs not captured | Integration of persons with disabilities | Low with mitigation | Free-text adjustment request routed to recruiter |

Material influence conclusion: [*Example:* The system does not
materially influence whether a candidate is selected. It acts only
after the human invitation decision and does not use any information
about the candidate's suitability.]

## 6. Registration and documentation duties

<!-- Guidance: Article 6(4) requires documentation before placing on the market or putting into service and registration under Article 49(2) in the EU database (Article 71). Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 kept the registration but deleted points 7 and 9 of Annex VIII Section B (the summary of grounds and the list of Member States), as reported in summaries of the Official Journal text. Check the current Annex VIII and from when the registration duty applies to your system. -->

| Duty | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Assessment documented before placing on the market or putting into service (Art. 6(4)) | [Done], YYYY-MM-DD | This document, version [x] |
| Provider and system registered in the EU database (Art. 49(2)) | [Done / Pending], YYYY-MM-DD | [Reference] |
| Annex VIII Section B information submitted | [Done] | Provider and contact details, trade name and reference, intended purpose, the Article 6(3) condition relied on, status |
| Documentation provided to national competent authority on request (Art. 6(4)) | [Not requested / Provided YYYY-MM-DD] | [Reference] |
| Other duties still apply | [Checked] | Article 50 transparency where relevant, Article 4 literacy measures, GDPR |

## 7. Reassessment triggers

<!-- Guidance: List concrete changes that could defeat the condition or introduce profiling. A new feature can quietly move the system into high-risk. -->

| Trigger | Why it matters | Action |
|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Proposed feature to offer earlier slots to higher-ranked candidates | Uses suitability scores: influences outcome and may be profiling | New assessment; likely high-risk |
| *Example:* Predicting no-show likelihood to overbook slots | Predicts behaviour: profiling | Treat as high-risk |
| New intended purpose or customer segment | May change Annex III area | Reassess |
| Final Commission guidelines published or changed | Interpretation may narrow the condition | Reassess within [30 days] |
| Market surveillance authority query (Art. 80) | Possible reclassification | Escalate to legal |
| Scheduled review | Drift between documentation and product | Every [12 months] |

## 8. Conclusion

<!-- Guidance: State the outcome plainly, the condition relied on, and the conditions attached. If the answer is high-risk, record that too and link the high-risk documentation. -->

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Outcome | [Not high-risk under Article 6(3) / High-risk] |
| Condition relied on | *Example:* Article 6(3)(a), narrow procedural task |
| Profiling | *Example:* None |
| Conditions attached | *Example:* No link to ranking scores; features in section 7 need a new assessment |
| Decision by | [@accountable-executive], YYYY-MM-DD |

If the outcome is high-risk, continue with ai-data/ai-act-risk-management-system,
ai-data/ai-act-technical-documentation, ai-data/ai-act-instructions-for-use
and ai-data/ai-act-declaration-of-conformity.

## 9. Glossary and references

<!-- Guidance: Define terms and list official sources with the date checked. -->

| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Annex III | List of high-risk use case areas in the AI Act, such as employment, education and essential services |
| Profiling | Automated processing of personal data to evaluate personal aspects of a person (GDPR Article 4(4)) |
| Narrow procedural task | A limited task that does not shape the substance of a decision |
| EU database | The database for high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III (Article 71) |
| Market surveillance authority | National authority that checks AI systems on the market |

References (check the current consolidated text and guidelines):

- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), Articles 6, 49, 71, 80, 113 and Annexes III and VIII: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
- Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI), OJ L 24 July 2026: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj
- European Commission, draft guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems, 19 May 2026 (consultation closed 23 July 2026; no final version adopted as of October 2026): https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/draft-commission-guidelines-classification-high-risk-ai-systems; check the AI Office pages at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai for the final version
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Article 4(4)
- Related templates: ai-data/ai-use-case-intake, ai-data/ai-system-inventory, ai-data/ai-act-technical-documentation, ai-data/ai-act-instructions-for-use, compliance/ai-regulatory-applicability-register

## Standard and licence note

Based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the Artificial Intelligence Act) as
amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI), Article
6(3) and (4), Article 49(2), Article 80 and Annex VIII Section B, as
published in the Official Journal of the European Union; EU legislative
texts are free to reuse. The conditions are summarised in original
wording and no text of the Regulation is reproduced. Check the
consolidated text on EUR-Lex and the final Commission guidelines under
Article 6(5) before relying on an assessment. All organisations,
products and figures in examples are fictional. This is a documentation
format, not legal advice. Template licence: MIT.