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.
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
To the extent a deployer controls the data fed into a high-risk AI system, it must make sure that input data is relevant to, and sufficiently representative for, the system's intended purpose. The duty sits with the deployer even though the provider designed the system, because the deployer chooses what the system is run on.
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
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
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·European Union
Deployers of high-risk AI must take technical and organisational measures to use systems according to the instructions, assign human oversight, ensure input data is relevant where they control it, monitor operation, inform the provider and authorities of risks or serious incidents, keep logs, inform workers' representatives before deploying at the workplace, inform affected natural persons where decisions are made about them, and cooperate with authorities.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
ICO AI guidance · UK GDPR Article 22 as amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025
Individuals have rights in relation to solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, including being told about the decision, obtaining human intervention, and contesting it. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 amended these rules; the reviewer must confirm the current wording.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
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
A consumer who receives an adverse consequential decision may obtain meaningful review by a person with the authority and information to change the outcome. Scope and timing follow the enrolled bill.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 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
Before deploying most Annex III high-risk systems, deployers that are bodies governed by public law or private entities providing public services, and deployers using systems for creditworthiness assessment or life and health insurance pricing, must assess the impact on fundamental rights: the processes, period and frequency of use, categories of affected persons, specific risks of harm, human-oversight measures and mitigation, and notify the market-surveillance authority of the results.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
If a deployer discovers that a high-risk AI system it uses has caused algorithmic discrimination, it must send a notice to the Colorado Attorney General within 90 days of the discovery, in the form the Attorney General prescribes, without unreasonable delay.
Pending review (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)
Deployers must monitor a high-risk AI system's operation against the provider's instructions and feed observations to the provider under Article 72. If they have reason to think the system as used may present a risk to health, safety or fundamental rights, they must inform the provider or distributor and the market surveillance authority without undue delay and suspend use. On a serious incident, they must immediately inform the provider, then the importer or distributor and the authorities. Financial institutions meet this through their internal governance rules.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementPrivacy and personal-data protection·European Union
Where a deployer of a high-risk AI system is required to carry out a data protection impact assessment under Article 35 of the GDPR or Article 27 of the Law Enforcement Directive, it must draw on the information the provider supplied under Article 13, such as the intended purpose, performance, limitations and human-oversight measures, when producing that assessment.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
A person may not develop or deploy an AI system with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class in violation of state or federal law. A disparate impact on a protected class is not, by itself, sufficient to show an intent to discriminate, and insurers and financial institutions acting under their own regulatory regimes are treated separately.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
A governmental entity may not develop or deploy an AI system that evaluates or classifies natural persons or groups on the basis of their social behaviour or personal characteristics, with the intent to calculate or assign a social score or similar valuation that leads to detrimental or unfavourable treatment unrelated to the context in which the data was collected, or that is unjustified or disproportionate to the behaviour.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Legal requirementPublic-sector use and procurement·European Union
EU AI Act · Article 26(8); Article 49(3) and 49(4)
Deployers that are public authorities or Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies must register their use of an Annex III high-risk AI system in the EU database before putting it into service. If they find that the system they intend to use has not been registered in the database by its provider, they must not use it and must inform the provider or distributor.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementRecord keeping and logging·European Union
EU AI Act · Article 12; Article 26(6) for deployers
High-risk AI systems must technically allow automatic recording of events (logs) over their lifetime to support traceability, post-market monitoring and operational monitoring. Deployers must keep the logs generated by the system, to the extent under their control, for a period appropriate to the intended purpose and at least six months unless other law provides otherwise.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Deployers must retain records showing how automated decision-making technology was used in consequential decisions, for three years, according to secondary reporting on the enrolled bill.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2027
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.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
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.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Developers of automated decision-making technology must provide deployers with the documentation the statute lists, so that deployers can meet their notice, disclosure and review duties.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2027
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.
