The Article 6(3) exception: when an Annex III system is not high-risk
An Annex III match can still escape the high-risk tier if it meets the disjunctive Art. 6(3) conditions and clears both gates — here is how the self-exclusion works and how to document it.
Falling under an Annex III area normally makes a system high-risk. Art. 6(3) provides a narrow escape: the system is not high-risk if it does not pose a significant risk of harm and does not materially influence decision outcomes.
The self-exclusion conditions (disjunctive)
The Art. 6(3) test is disjunctive — you qualify if at least one of four conditions holds:
- (a) the system performs only a narrow procedural task (a routine mechanical step, no substantive judgment);
- (b) it only improves the result of a previously completed human activity, without replacing or pre-empting it;
- (c) it detects decision-making patterns or deviations from them, without replacing or influencing a completed human assessment absent proper human review;
- (d) it performs a purely preparatory task to an assessment — a human still makes every decision with legal or similarly significant effect.
The two hard gates
Meeting a condition is not enough on its own — both of these must also be true:
- the no significant risk of harm chapeau, and
- no profiling of natural persons — an absolute bar. Under Art. 6(3) an Annex III system that performs profiling can never use this exception, and Veritome's classifier enforces this override automatically.
You must also document it: under Art. 6(4), a provider claiming the exception records the assessment before placing the system on the market and hands the documentation to the national competent authority on request.
Veritome's built-in assessment wizard
Every Annex III system gets a 3-step Art. 6(3) wizard:
- Eligibility — confirm the system falls under Annex III and you act as provider; the wizard shows the Annex III area on file.
- Criteria — six cards: the four disjunctive conditions above plus the two required gates. A live verdict tells you whether the system qualifies (at least one condition met, and both gates clear).
- Reasoning — write the documented justification (minimum ~50 characters) that forms your Art. 6(4) record.
The record — answers, reasoning, verdict, who assessed it and when — is saved on the system's active classification and written to the audit log. If it qualifies, a reminder prompts you to notify the national market-surveillance authority and mark it as notified. If the exception applies, the system is classified as not high-risk — though Art. 50 transparency duties can still attach independently. Self-exclusion isn't a loophole: you must document why, notify the authority, and you stay on the hook if you're wrong.