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.
8 of 117 obligations match · Download these as CSV
OMB M-25-21 · Section 4
For AI whose output serves as a principal basis for decisions with significant effects on rights, safety or access to services, agencies must complete pre-deployment testing, an AI impact assessment, ongoing monitoring, operator training, human oversight and a mechanism for affected people to seek remedy, or stop using the AI.
Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(2)
Deployers of high-risk AI must implement a risk-management policy and programme governing deployment, specifying principles, processes and personnel used to identify, document and mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination, and reasonable in light of recognised frameworks such as the NIST AI RMF or ISO/IEC 42001.
Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(1)
A deployer of a high-risk AI system must use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. A deployer that runs the required risk-management programme, completes impact assessments, gives consumer notices and makes the required disclosures benefits from a rebuttable presumption of reasonable care; some deployers with fewer than 50 employees are relieved of parts of the programme and assessment duties when they rely on the developer's impact assessment.
Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1702(1)
A developer of a high-risk AI system must use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risk of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of the system. A developer that meets the documentation, public-statement and Attorney General disclosure duties in the rest of section 6-1-1702 benefits from a rebuttable presumption that it used reasonable care.
EU AI Act · Article 9
Providers of high-risk AI systems must establish, implement, document and maintain a continuous, iterative risk-management system across the system's lifecycle: identifying known and reasonably foreseeable risks to health, safety and fundamental rights, estimating and evaluating risks including from reasonably foreseeable misuse, evaluating post-market data, and adopting targeted risk-management measures, with testing before placing on the market.
AI Basic Act · Article 34(1)
An AI business operator that provides high-impact AI, or a product or service using it, must establish and operate a plan for managing the risks of that AI. High-impact AI is AI used in areas such as energy, drinking water, health care and medical devices, nuclear safety, biometric analysis for criminal investigation, decisions on recruitment or loans, transport, public services and education, where it may materially affect life, safety or fundamental rights.
UK AI regulation framework · Principle 1, Part 3
Regulators are asked to ensure AI systems function in a robust, secure and safe way, with risks continually identified, assessed and managed. In practice this is enforced through existing safety, security and data-protection law rather than a new duty.
NIST AI RMF · MANAGE function
Manage allocates resources to mapped and measured risks, plans responses including decommissioning, manages third-party risks, and documents post-deployment monitoring, incident response and communication.
Filters
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.
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.
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.
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.
