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.
A provider that considers a system listed in Annex III to be outside the high-risk tier because it meets one of the Article 6(3) conditions, such as performing a narrow procedural task or only preparing a human assessment, must write down that assessment before placing the system on the market or putting it into service, register the system in the EU database under Article 49(2), and hand over the assessment on request from a national competent authority.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·South Korea
An AI business operator that provides a product or service operated by high-impact AI or by generative AI must notify users in advance that the product or service is based on such AI. The notice is owed before use and is the entry point of the Act's transparency chapter; failure to give it can attract an administrative fine after a corrective order.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·European Union
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.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
A deployer must make available on its website, or in another public way, a clear and readily available statement summarising the types of high-risk AI systems it currently deploys, how it manages known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination from those systems, and the nature, source and extent of the information it collects and uses. The statement must be updated periodically.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·European Union
Deployers of Annex III high-risk AI systems that take decisions about natural persons, or help take them, must inform those persons that they are subject to the system. The notice is separate from any explanation owed under Article 86 and from the worker notice in Article 26(7). In law-enforcement contexts the duty follows the information rules of the Law Enforcement Directive.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
After an adverse consequential decision, the deployer must tell the consumer that automated decision-making technology was used, give the principal reasons for the decision, and explain how to obtain human review.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2027
A governmental agency that makes an AI system available to interact with consumers must disclose to each consumer, before or at the time of the interaction, that they are interacting with an AI system. The disclosure is owed even where the AI nature of the interaction would be obvious, must be clear and conspicuous, written in plain language and may not use a dark pattern; a hyperlink to the disclosure is acceptable for online services.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Deployers must tell a consumer, before the decision is made, that automated decision-making technology will be used to make or materially influence a consequential decision about them. The exact content and timing of the notice follow the enrolled bill, which a reviewer must read.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2027
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·South Korea
Operators of high-impact AI must put in place measures to explain the AI's final results, the main criteria used to reach them, and an overview of the training data, to the extent that this is technically feasible. The duty targets explainability of the system's decisions to users and affected people rather than full disclosure of the model.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·United States
Guardrail 1 asks organisations to set up accountability processes including governance, internal capability and a strategy for regulatory compliance; guardrail 2 asks for a risk-management process to identify and mitigate risks across the AI lifecycle.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Voluntary guidanceGovernance and accountability·Nepal
Nepal National AI Policy · Policy objectives and strategies (to be confirmed against the official text)
The policy commits the government to ethical, transparent and inclusive AI, data governance and institutional oversight. The specific strategies and any obligations on private actors must be confirmed from the official document; this record intentionally does not state details that could not be verified.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
UAE AI Strategy 2031 · Strategy objectives on governance and ethics (reviewer to cite the section)
The strategy commits the government to ensure effective governance and regulation of AI and to promote ethical AI, which led to the AI Ethics Principles and Guidelines and the 2024 UAE AI Charter.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Map establishes the context: intended purposes, users, deployment settings, legal requirements, risk categorisation, benefits and costs, and impacts on individuals, groups, communities and society.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
An AI business operator that provides high-impact AI, or a product or service using it, is to make efforts to assess in advance the impact the AI may have on people's fundamental rights. The provision is drafted as an endeavour duty rather than a hard requirement, but public bodies procuring high-impact AI are directed to give preference to products that have undergone such an assessment, and the ministry may set assessment methods.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Voluntary guidanceTransparency and disclosure·United Kingdom
Organisations should communicate when and how AI is used and provide explanations proportionate to the risk, so that people can understand decisions affecting them. For personal data, UK GDPR transparency and automated decision-making rights make this binding in practice.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Voluntary guidanceVendor and supply-chain governance·Australia
Establish processes for people impacted by AI to challenge use or outcomes; be transparent with other organisations across the AI supply chain about data, models and systems; and keep and maintain records to allow third parties to assess compliance.
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.
