conformity assessmentnotified bodyhigh-risk

    AI Act Conformity Assessment: Internal Control vs Notified Body

    Ready 4 AI Act · April 9, 2026 · 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 — those high-risk because of their use case (HR, education, credit, essential services) — 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 — 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? → Sectoral route integrating AI Act obligations.
    2. Annex III(1) biometric? → Notified body unless harmonised standards fully applied.
    3. Other Annex III? → Internal control.
    4. Substantial modification? → 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 — 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 · EU AI Act overview · 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