Practical requirements extracted from policy instruments, with the source article, the actors they bind, evidence examples and original framework mappings. Legal requirements are marked; everything else is voluntary guidance.
High-risk AI systems must achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity and perform consistently throughout their lifecycle. Accuracy levels and metrics must be declared in the instructions; systems must be resilient to errors, faults and inconsistencies, address feedback loops in continuously learning systems, and resist attempts to alter use or performance, including data poisoning, model poisoning, adversarial examples and confidentiality attacks.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementAI literacy and training·European Union
Providers and deployers must take measures to ensure, to their best extent, a sufficient level of AI literacy among their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, taking into account technical knowledge, experience, training, the context of use and the persons affected.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Feb 2025
Legal requirementConformity assessment and registration·European Union
EU AI Act · Articles 43, 47, 48 and 49; Annex VIII
Before placing a high-risk system on the market, providers must complete the applicable conformity assessment (internal control or notified-body assessment depending on the system), draw up an EU declaration of conformity, affix the CE marking, and register the system in the EU database. Deployers that are public authorities must also register their use of Annex III systems.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementData governance and quality·European Union
High-risk AI systems that use data-driven techniques must be developed on training, validation and testing data sets meeting quality criteria: appropriate governance practices covering design choices, data collection and origin, preparation, assumptions, availability and suitability, examination for possible biases, and measures to detect, prevent and mitigate bias. Data must be relevant, sufficiently representative and, to the best extent possible, free of errors and complete for the intended purpose.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·European Union
A distributor, importer, deployer or other third party is treated as the provider of a high-risk AI system, with all Article 16 duties, if it puts its own name or trademark on a system already on the market, makes a substantial modification to a high-risk system that stays high-risk, or changes the intended purpose of a system so that it becomes high-risk. The original provider then ceases to be provider for that system but must cooperate and supply the information and access needed for the new provider to comply.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·South Korea
An AI business operator without an address or place of business in Korea, whose user numbers or revenue meet the thresholds set by Presidential Decree, must designate in writing a domestic representative with an address in Korea. The representative handles the operator's duties under the Act, including submitting the Article 32 safety results, supporting high-impact AI confirmation and cooperating with fact-finding investigations, and the operator is treated as responsible for the representative's acts.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
A frontier developer must not adopt rules or take action that prevent or retaliate against a covered employee for disclosing to the Attorney General, a federal authority, a manager or another employee with authority that the developer's activities pose a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety from catastrophic risk, or that it has violated the Act. Covered employees must be given clear notice of these rights, and large frontier developers must run an anonymous internal reporting process with regular updates to the reporter and to officers and directors.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·European Union
Before making a high-risk AI system available in the Union, a provider established outside the EU must appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative established in the Union. The representative verifies that the EU declaration of conformity and technical documentation exist and that conformity assessment was done, keeps the provider's contact details and the documentation available for ten years, supplies information to authorities, cooperates with them, and must end the mandate if the provider acts contrary to the Regulation.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·South Korea
Operators of high-impact AI must prepare and implement a plan to protect users, and must prepare and keep documents describing the measures they take to secure the AI's safety and reliability, so that they can be shown to the Ministry of Science and ICT on request. Further items may be added by Presidential Decree, and the ministry may publish guidelines on how to meet these duties.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·European Union
Article 16 lists what a provider of a high-risk AI system owes: compliance with the Section 2 requirements, its name and contact details on the system or its documentation, a quality management system, retention of documentation and logs, conformity assessment, an EU declaration of conformity, CE marking, registration, corrective action when needed, cooperation with authorities on request, and accessibility in line with the EU accessibility directives.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·European Union
On a reasoned request from a national competent authority, a provider of a high-risk AI system must supply all the information and documentation needed to show that the system meets the Section 2 requirements, in a language the authority can readily understand, and must give the authority access to the automatically generated logs it holds. Authorities must treat what they receive as confidential under Article 78.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
EU AI Act · Article 14; Article 26(2) for deployers
High-risk systems must be designed with human-machine interface tools so natural persons can effectively oversee them, understand capacities and limitations, avoid automation bias, interpret output, decide not to use the system, and intervene or stop it. Deployers must assign oversight to people with the necessary competence, training and authority. For certain remote biometric identification systems, action requires verification by at least two competent persons.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Operators of high-impact AI must ensure that the AI is subject to human management and supervision, so that people remain able to monitor its operation and intervene in or override its outputs where those outputs may affect life, physical safety or fundamental rights.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
ICO AI guidance · UK GDPR Article 35; ICO guidance, accountability and governance section
Where AI processing of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to individuals, UK GDPR requires a DPIA before processing begins. The ICO treats most AI involving profiling, large-scale processing or novel technology as meeting this threshold.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
UAE PDPL · Article on data protection impact assessment (reviewer to cite article number)
Before processing that uses modern technologies and is likely to pose a high risk to privacy, controllers must assess the impact on personal data protection, covering the processing, its purposes, risks and safeguards.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Entities notified as Significant Data Fiduciaries, based on factors such as volume and sensitivity of data and risk to individuals, must appoint a Data Protection Officer based in India, an independent data auditor, and periodically undertake data protection impact assessments and audits.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Within 90 days after a developer discovers, through ongoing testing or a credible report from a deployer, that a high-risk AI system it developed has caused or is reasonably likely to have caused algorithmic discrimination, it must disclose this to the Colorado Attorney General and to all known deployers or other developers of the system, without unreasonable delay.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirementIncident reporting and handling·India
India DPDP Act · Section 8(5) and 8(6); DPDP Rules on breach intimation
Data Fiduciaries must protect personal data with reasonable security safeguards and, on a personal data breach, inform the Data Protection Board and each affected individual in the form and manner prescribed by the Rules.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirementIncident reporting and handling·European Union
A provider that considers, or has reason to consider, that a high-risk system it has placed on the market is not in conformity must immediately correct it, withdraw it, disable it or recall it as appropriate, and inform the distributors, deployers, authorised representative and importers. Where the system presents a risk to health, safety or fundamental rights and the provider becomes aware of that risk, it must immediately investigate the causes together with the reporting deployer and inform the market surveillance authorities and, where relevant, the notified body.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
California SB 53 · Business and Professions Code, Chapter 25.1 (as added by SB 53)
Frontier developers must report critical safety incidents to the California Office of Emergency Services within the statutory time limit after discovery, and the Office is to establish a reporting mechanism.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Legal requirementIncident reporting and handling·European Union
Providers of high-risk AI systems must report serious incidents to the market-surveillance authority of the Member State where the incident occurred, immediately after establishing a causal link (or reasonable likelihood) and no later than 15 days after becoming aware, with shorter limits for the most serious cases such as widespread infringements or death. Deployers must inform the provider and authorities when they identify a serious incident.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Providers must establish and document a post-market monitoring system proportionate to the nature of the AI technology and its risks, actively and systematically collecting and analysing performance data throughout the system's lifetime, based on a monitoring plan that is part of the technical documentation. The Commission is to adopt a template for the plan.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementPrivacy and personal-data protection·Nepal
Nepal Privacy Act 2075 · Chapter on collection and protection of personal information (reviewer to cite sections)
Personal information may be collected only by authorised persons for a lawful purpose with the individual's consent, and must not be used or disclosed for other purposes without consent, subject to statutory exceptions. AI systems trained on or processing personal data of people in Nepal must respect these limits.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirementPrivacy and personal-data protection·Singapore
PDPC AI advisory guidelines · Advisory guidelines, sections on consent, business improvement and research exceptions
Personal data used to train or operate AI systems requires consent unless an exception applies, such as the business improvement exception for improving products and services or the research exception for developing models, each subject to conditions.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirementPrivacy and personal-data protection·India
Personal data may be processed only for a lawful purpose with the individual's free, specific, informed and unambiguous consent, or for certain legitimate uses listed in the Act. A notice must describe the data, purpose, and how to exercise rights and complain.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
A single practical requirement pulled out of an instrument and stated on its own: keep a risk management system, log incidents, document training data, provide human oversight, and so on. Each one cites the article or section it comes from so you can check it against the source.
Does a voluntary obligation have legal force?
No, and every obligation is labelled either a legal requirement or voluntary guidance. Voluntary items still matter in practice, because procurement questionnaires and auditors ask about them, but only the binding ones carry legal consequence.
How do I find the obligations that apply to my organisation?
Filter by jurisdiction, category, actor, sector or use case. The applicability check asks a short set of questions and returns the duties that may reach you. It is an educational screen, not a legal determination, and it says so.
Why do some instruments have no obligations listed?
Because nobody has broken them out yet. Most instruments are recorded at summary level first; obligations are added jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The coverage and open-gaps pages publish exactly what is missing rather than hiding it.
