conformity assessmentnotified bodyhigh-risk

    AI Act Conformity Assessment: Internal Control vs Notified Body

    Ready 4 AI Act ยท April 9, 2026 ยท Last updated July 31, 2026

    Cover image for "AI Act Conformity Assessment: Internal Control vs Notified Body"

    What a conformity assessment is

    An EU AI Act conformity assessment is the procedure by which a provider demonstrates that a high-risk AI system meets all applicable requirements in Chapter III, Section 2. The result is a Declaration of Conformity and a CE marking.

    Two routes: internal control (Annex VI) and notified body involvement (Annex VII).

    The default rule

    For most Annex III high-risk systems โ€” those high-risk because of their use case (HR, education, credit, essential services) โ€” the default is internal control under Annex VI. No third party required.

    When a notified body is required

    1. Biometric systems under Annex III(1) where harmonised standards are not fully applied.
    2. Annex I products โ€” AI as a safety component of products already regulated by harmonised EU legislation (medical devices, machinery, toys). The sectoral conformity route applies.
    3. Biometric systems without harmonised standards.

    The decision path

    1. Annex I regulated product? โ†’ Sectoral route integrating AI Act obligations.
    2. Annex III(1) biometric? โ†’ Notified body unless harmonised standards fully applied.
    3. Other Annex III? โ†’ Internal control.
    4. Substantial modification? โ†’ Redo the assessment.

    What internal control involves

    • Confirm the quality management system (Article 17) is in place.
    • Verify the technical documentation (Article 11 and Annex IV) is complete.
    • Verify the design and development process matches the documentation.
    • Sign the EU Declaration of Conformity and affix CE marking.
    • Register the system in the EU database (Article 71).

    What notified body involvement adds

    • Independent assessment of the QMS and technical documentation.
    • A certificate valid up to five years, subject to surveillance.
    • Higher direct cost, smoother path in regulated verticals.

    Substantial modification

    Article 43(4): a substantial modification after placing on the market triggers a new assessment. Continuous learning within a pre-defined and documented performance range does not count.

    Common mistakes

    • Assuming a notified body is always required.
    • Skipping EU database registration โ€” a hard prerequisite.
    • Forgetting Article 49 deployer registration duties for public authorities.
    • Treating the Declaration of Conformity as a one-time document.

    Related: High-risk AI systems guide ยท EU AI Act overview ยท Free readiness assessment

    Reviewed by Ready 4 AI Act EU - Editorial team. This article is journalistic information, not legal advice.

    Not sure where you stand?

    Take the free readiness assessment and get a personalised report.

    Start free assessment