Annex VIII

07
Sep
2026

You still register the AI system you decided isn’t high-risk

Under Article 6(4) of the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), a provider who concludes under Article 6(3) that its Annex III system is not, in fact, high-risk still has to register that system in the EU database — with a short summary of the grounds on which it reached that conclusion. That entry sits in the public section. The Commission’s Digital Omnibus proposal of 19 November 2025 tried to delete this obligation outright. Both the Council, in its negotiating mandate of 13 March 2026, and the European Parliament’s IMCO and LIBE committees, in a joint report adopted five days later on a 101-9-8 vote, independently rejected the deletion. The final text reinstates registration, with streamlined content requirements. If your compliance plan was drafted off the November proposal, it’s currently wrong.

The rule in one paragraph

Exemption doesn’t mean invisibility. Concluding that your Annex III system clears the Article 6(3) bar doesn’t end your paperwork — it starts a different kind. You keep the internal assessment that got you to that conclusion, you file a summary of it in the EU database, and that summary sits where the public can read it.

The three database categories

The EU database sorts entries into three categories, and who files depends on which one applies:

  • Category 1 — genuinely high-risk systems under Article 6(2) and Annex III. Filed under Annex VIII Section A. The provider files.
  • Category 2 — systems a provider has assessed as not-high-risk under Article 6(3). Filed under Annex VIII Section B. The provider files.
  • Category 3 — high-risk systems used by public authority deployers. Filed under Annex VIII Section C, including a summary of the data protection impact assessment carried out under Article 35 GDPR. The deployer files, not the provider.

Category 2 is the one that catches people off guard, precisely because “not high-risk” sounds like an off-ramp from the database entirely. It isn’t.

What your competitors get to read

Category 2 entries go into the public section of the database, the same section genuinely high-risk registrations sit in. The public section is free to access, navigable, and machine-readable. That’s not a side effect — it’s the design.

The practical consequence is straightforward and easy to underestimate: the legal argument you’re relying on to stay out of the high-risk regime is a document a competitor, a journalist, or an NGO can read, and can challenge. If your reasoning under Article 6(3) is thin, it’s thin in public.

The Article 80 backstop

Article 80 gives market surveillance authorities a specific procedure for exactly this situation, and it’s worth reading in full rather than taking on faith. Where an authority has sufficient reason to believe a system a provider classified as not-high-risk is actually high-risk, it tests that classification against the Article 6(3) conditions and the Commission’s guidelines. If the test confirms the system is high-risk, the authority orders the provider to bring it into compliance within a deadline the authority sets. Miss that deadline, and fines follow under Article 99 — that’s the backstop the brief refers to, and it’s a real, specific consequence, not a vague risk of reputational harm.

There’s a second, sharper consequence sitting one paragraph later. If the authority’s review finds the provider classified the system as not-high-risk specifically to circumvent the Chapter III Section 2 requirements — not a good-faith misjudgment, but an evasive one — that draws its own, separately finable violation under Article 99.

And Article 80 names its own evidence source. In exercising their oversight, market surveillance authorities may carry out checks that take into account, in particular, information stored in the EU database. That’s not a general observation about transparency — it’s the Act telling authorities where to look first. Your Category 2 summary isn’t a filing that disappears into an archive; it’s a named input into exactly the kind of review Article 80 describes.

What the Omnibus changed

The sequence is worth having straight, because it moved more than once. The Commission’s Digital Omnibus package, published 19 November 2025, proposed deleting the Article 6(4) registration obligation for self-assessed not-high-risk systems entirely. The Council’s negotiating mandate of 13 March 2026 rejected that specific deletion while broadly aligning with the Commission elsewhere, reinstating a simplified registration obligation. Five days later, on 18 March 2026, the Parliament’s IMCO and LIBE committees adopted a joint report doing the same, by a 101-9-8 vote. A provisional political agreement reached on 7 May 2026 confirmed the reinstatement, with streamlined Annex VIII Section B content — fewer data points required in the filing, without removing the filing itself. Parliament adopted the final text on 16 June 2026, and the Council gave its final green light on 29 June 2026.

What’s actually different in the streamlined Section B, line by line, isn’t something I can confirm precisely — commentary consistently describes it as a reduced set of required data points rather than a restructured form, but I haven’t seen the specific before-and-after list. What isn’t in question is the outcome: the obligation survived a deletion attempt from its own drafter, unanimously rejected by both co-legislators before trilogue even started.

One more date worth anchoring this to: Annex III high-risk obligations, under the same reform, now apply from 2 December 2027 rather than the original 2 August 2026. The registration duty for Category 2 systems tracks that same timeline.

The one Annex III category that escapes the EU database

There’s a genuine exception, and it’s narrow. High-risk AI systems falling under Annex III point 2 — critical infrastructure — register at national level instead of in the EU database. The Act doesn’t name a single EU-wide national register to check; the obligation is simply pushed down to whichever Member State mechanism applies, and that mechanism isn’t uniform across the Union. If your system is critical-infrastructure-adjacent, “check the EU database” isn’t the right instruction to give your compliance team.

Frequently asked questions

Do I register before or after placing the system on the market?

Before. Registration is structured as a precondition tied to placing the system on the market or putting it into service, not a filing you make afterward to tidy up the paperwork. Treat the Article 6(3) assessment and the database entry as part of your go-live checklist, not a follow-up task.

What if my system triggers the profiling override?

Then Article 6(3) isn’t available to you at all. Any Annex III system also used to profile natural persons is high-risk regardless of how narrow, preparatory, or human-reviewed its role looks otherwise — there’s no exemption to claim. You’re in Category 1, filing under Annex VIII Section A, not Category 2.

Can I redact the grounds I file?

Not for a standard Category 2 entry — the summary of your grounds is what goes in the public section, and that’s the point of the filing. Restricted, non-public treatment is reserved for specific categories named in the Act, chiefly biometrics, law enforcement, migration and border control, and similar sensitive uses. A conventional HR, credit, or education system claiming the Article 6(3) exemption doesn’t get that treatment.

Who registers if we’re the importer, not the original developer?

Ordinarily, the original provider — including one established outside the EU, acting through its EU authorised representative. You become the provider yourself, with the provider’s registration duty, only if you put your own name or trademark on the system, make a substantial modification to it, or modify a non-high-risk system’s intended purpose in a way that makes it high-risk. A straightforward import without any of that doesn’t shift the filing obligation onto you.

Does this apply to a system already on the market?

This is genuinely less settled than the rest of this piece. The Act’s general grandfathering rule protects high-risk systems already on the market from the new obligations unless they undergo significant changes, and the same logic would plausibly extend to a system you’d assessed, before the relevant date, as not needing Article 6(3) registration at all. But I haven’t found a source that addresses this specific edge case directly, so treat it as a reasonable inference rather than a confirmed answer, and check it against the Commission’s guidance before relying on it.

Posted by admin in Digital Operational Compliance & EU AI Act Knowledge Base
08
Aug
2026

Targeted job ads are high-risk AI under Annex III

Annex III point 4(a) of the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) covers AI intended to be used for recruiting or selecting natural persons, “in particular for placing targeted job advertisements, analysing and filtering applications, and evaluating candidates.” Targeted job advertising is named first, ahead of application filtering and candidate evaluation, in the operative text itself. Most HR compliance programmes classify the applicant tracking system and the interview-scoring tool without ever looking at the ad-targeting stack behind a recruitment campaign — because that stack usually sits with marketing, not HR, and nobody told marketing this Annex applies to them too.

What Annex III point 4 actually lists

Point 4(a) covers recruiting or selecting natural persons, with three named examples: placing targeted job advertisements, analysing and filtering applications, and evaluating candidates. Point 4(b) covers a separate category — decisions affecting the terms of a work-related relationship, promotion or termination of a work-related contract, allocating tasks based on an individual’s behaviour or personal traits, and monitoring or evaluating the performance and behaviour of people already in that relationship.

Why the ad stack is the blind spot

Follow where ownership actually sits inside a typical organisation. The applicant tracking system has an HR owner, and by now usually has an AI Act classification attached to it. The audience-targeting model deciding who sees a given job advertisement — built into or bolted onto a recruitment marketing campaign — has a marketing owner, and in most organisations no classification has ever been attempted. Both sit inside the same legal category. Annex III point 4(a) doesn’t distinguish between the system that decides who to interview and the system that decides who gets shown the ad in the first place; it names the second one first.

Can you exempt out under Article 6(3)?

Article 6(3) lets a provider treat an Annex III system as not high-risk where it poses no significant risk of harm and meets one of four conditions: it performs a narrow procedural task; it improves the result of a previously completed human activity; it detects decision-making patterns or deviations from them without replacing or influencing a previously completed human assessment without proper human review; or it performs a preparatory task for an assessment relevant to an Annex III use case.

Test an ad-targeting model against these honestly rather than reaching for whichever sounds closest. Deciding which individuals see a job advertisement, based on inferred interests, behaviour, or demographic proxies, is not a narrow procedural task — it’s a substantive targeting decision, arguably the central function of the model. It’s a weak fit for “improving a previously completed human activity” unless a human already decided the exact audience and the model only optimises delivery mechanics within that fixed audience. It doesn’t detect patterns or deviations from prior decisions in the way the third ground contemplates. And it’s a stretch to call the core targeting decision merely “preparatory” to some later assessment, when the targeting decision is often the entire point of the system.

The override that ends the argument

Even where one of the four grounds might plausibly fit, Article 6(3) closes with an override that applies notwithstanding all of them: an Annex III system is always considered high-risk if it carries out profiling of natural persons. No exemption survives that. An audience model built on individual behavioural traits — inferred interests, browsing history, demographic signals used to decide who sees what — is profiling by any ordinary reading of the term. That ends the Article 6(3) argument regardless of how well the model might otherwise have fit one of the four narrow grounds.

The price of claiming the exemption anyway

If you conclude your ad-targeting model genuinely clears Article 6(3) despite this, the exemption doesn’t make the system invisible. You keep the underlying assessment, and you register the system in the EU database with a summary of the grounds you relied on — and that summary sits in the database’s public section, readable by anyone, including a competitor or an advocacy group. The mechanics of that registration duty, and what happens if a market surveillance authority later disagrees with your classification, are covered in full in a companion piece on Article 6(3) registration and Article 80 enforcement rather than repeated here.

When this bites

Annex III obligations now apply from 2 December 2027, following the Digital Omnibus deferral, once the amending regulation is actually published in the Official Journal. Recruitment and employment systems sit in the Annex III categories that go through internal-control self-assessment rather than a notified body, so unlike biometric AI, there’s no third-party capacity bottleneck standing between now and that date. The sixteen-odd months between now and then are for inventory and classification work specifically — finding every system that touches recruitment, including the ones marketing owns — and that work doesn’t depend on any external standard or authority being ready first. Nothing about the extended timeline changes what needs to be found; it only changes how much time there is to find it.

Frequently asked questions

Does using LinkedIn’s ad targeting make us a deployer?

Likely yes. The platform is ordinarily the provider of the underlying targeting system, and the business running a recruitment campaign through it is the deployer — deployer obligations attach to you regardless of who built the model underneath the campaign tool you’re using.

What if the vendor says their tool isn’t high-risk?

Verify it yourself rather than relying on that assurance. The classification decision, and the consequences if a market surveillance authority later disagrees with it, attach to whoever is actually making the call — a vendor’s own marketing claim about its product’s risk tier doesn’t relieve you of that.

Are we the provider or the deployer?

Ordinarily the deployer, using a system someone else built. You become a provider yourself only if you put your own name or branding on the system, substantially modify it, or change a non-high-risk system’s intended purpose in a way that makes it high-risk — the same test that applies to importers and rebranders elsewhere in the Act.

Does a job board’s own matching algorithm count?

To the extent a job board’s algorithm recruits, selects, or filters candidates on an employer’s behalf, that function sits inside Annex III 4(a) in its own right — with the job board as a plausible provider of that specific functionality and the posting employer as its deployer.

Does an internal mobility tool count?

That sits closer to Annex III 4(b) than 4(a) — assessing existing employees for promotion or transfer eligibility is a decision affecting the terms of an employment relationship, not external recruitment. The same profiling override applies equally regardless of which limb of point 4 the tool falls under.

Posted by admin in Workforce, Labour & HR Compliance Reporting