Classify one AI system against the routes of the Regulation
classify_systemRead-only
Use this as the first step when you hold a concrete AI system and need to know which routes of the EU AI Act come into view: prohibited practice screening, Annex III high risk, transparency, FRIA and the general purpose model route, and with a version 2 profile the wider set of duties, such as Article 26 for a deployer. It runs the deterministic decision engine over coded answers and returns one applicability status per assessed obligation, with the timing and what is still open. It is not meant for a general question about the law. An obligation the engine did not assess is listed in assessment_scope.not_assessed with the reason; it was not found inapplicable. It does not return a single coded classification label.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the labels and explanations. Dutch is the default. | nl |
| detail | No | Amount of data to return. brief keeps the outcome, the dates, the reasons, the open questions and the source with its locator; full adds the complete objects, every statement text and every hash, for re-computation or archiving. | brief |
| profile | Yes | The coded answers about one system. The fifteen version 1 fields are required. A field that does not bear on this case takes not_relevant, and unsure is a real answer that leads to insufficient_context rather than to a guess. A version 1 profile has five obligations assessed. To have the wider set assessed, including Article 26 for a deployer of a high risk system, also send profile_version 2.0.0, chain_roles (consistent with actor_role) and the twelve other version 2 scope facts: ai_system_scope, jurisdiction_established_in_eu, jurisdiction_market_in_eu, jurisdiction_output_in_eu, scope_exclusion, annex_i_product, annex_i_third_party_conformity, article_25_role_change, provider_outside_eu, sandbox_participation, real_world_testing and adverse_significant_decision. The remaining version 2 facts are optional: an unanswered fact is unknown and leads to insufficient_context, never to a silent no. The backend rejects a profile whose answers contradict each other. |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| dataset | Yes | ||
| privacy | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| sources | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| disclaimer | No | ||
| provenance | Yes | Which published endpoints produced this result. Every call is listed with its full URL, so a reader can re-issue it and check the answer rather than trust it. | |
| obligations | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No | ||
| blocking_flags | No | ||
| deadline_notes | No | ||
| open_questions | No | ||
| assessment_scope | No | What this assessment did and did not assess, from the engine itself. not_assessed groups the obligations that were not assessed by reason (for example profile_version_below_2), with the facts that would have them assessed. Not assessed is not the same as not applying. | |
| evaluation_scope | No | ||
| payload_hash_sha256 | No | ||
| decision_engine_version | No | ||
| snapshot_schema_version | No | ||
| evaluated_obligation_ids | No | ||
| not_indicated_obligation_ids | No |