AIPolicyTracker
Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure European Union Partially applicable

Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request

Context fileUnder EU AI Act, Article 86

Source-linked Open official source

What does it require?

A person affected by a decision that a deployer took on the basis of the output of an Annex III high-risk AI system, other than critical-infrastructure systems, which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects them in a way they consider adverse to their health, safety or fundamental rights, has the right to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role the system played in the decision and the main elements of the decision. The right does not apply where Union or national law provides an exception.

Practical action

Set up a request channel and an explanation template that names the system's role, the key inputs and the human decision points for each affected process.

Who does it apply to?

Deployers using Annex III high-risk systems for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects on individuals; overlaps with GDPR Article 22 rights.

Applies from:

Which controls meet this duty?

Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.

  • satisfiesProcessCustomer operations lead · once per ai system
    Decision explanation, human review and appeal route

    Serves 10 recorded duties · evidence: Adverse-decision explanation template, AI decision challenge and human review procedure, Challenge and reversal log

    Request channel and explanation of the system's role and main decision elements.

  • supportsTechnical measureEngineering lead · continuous
    Automatic event logging and record retention

    Serves 8 recorded duties · evidence: AI system event logs, Log schema and retention standard, Log integrity and retention check

    Logs supply the inputs cited in the explanation.

What evidence would a reviewer expect?

Evidence examples
EvidenceTypeNotes
Explanation request procedure and templatedocument
Register of explanation requests and responsesregister

Framework mappings

Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.

See every European Union duty mapped this way →

Framework mappings
FrameworkReferenceNoteConfidence
ISO/IEC 42001:2023Annex A.8.5, A.9.2Information for interested parties and responsible-use processes.medium
NIST AI RMF 1.0GOVERN 5.1, MANAGE 4.1Recourse and communication for affected individuals.medium

Cite this record

AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request (EU AI Act)”. https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-art-86-right-to-explanation (accessed 24 September 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Cite the official text alongside it: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj.

Similar obligations in other instruments

Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.