How a 'AI Proposes, Human Approves' Rule Keeps Compliance Tools Out of EU AI Act High-Risk Scope
A compliance engineer working with AI-assisted quality management systems has outlined a practical framework to avoid triggering high-risk classification under the EU AI Act's Title III. The core rule is straightforward: AI may generate suggestions, drafts, or prioritisation scores, but a named, trained human must review, edit if needed, and formally sign off before any change to a regulated record takes effect. This distinction matters because systems that autonomously execute decisions affecting safety or regulatory records can be reclassified as high-risk AI, bringing heavier conformity assessments, stricter post-market monitoring, and greater liability exposure. To enforce this boundary, the author's team implemented technical controls such as restricting AI from changing record status fields, requiring timestamped review comments, and maintaining immutable audit logs of both AI outputs and human decisions. Procedural safeguards including SOPs, approver training records, and periodic drift reviews are also integrated directly into the quality management system.
This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.
Discussion (0)
Log in to join the discussion and vote.
Log in