Annex VI (internal control)
The conformity assessment procedure in which the provider itself verifies (without notified-body involvement) that the quality management system, the technical documentation, and the design-development and post-market monitoring processes are compliant with the Act's requirements. Mandatory for Annex III, points 2 to 8 systems; optional (alongside Annex VII) for Annex III, point 1 systems when harmonised standards are fully applied.
Defined in 2 GAGE programs, which carry 4 distinct definitions of it. The wording above is taught in EU AI Act Implementation Expert.
How each discipline defines it
The same term does different work depending on who is using it. These are the definitions as each program teaches them, unedited.
The conformity assessment procedure in which the provider itself verifies (without notified-body involvement) that the quality management system, the technical documentation, and the design-development and post-market monitoring processes are compliant with the Act's requirements. Mandatory for Annex III, points 2 to 8 systems; optional (alongside Annex VII) for Annex III, point 1 systems when harmonised standards are fully applied.
The internal self-assessment conformity route: the provider checks the system against the requirements, assembles the technical documentation, and signs the declaration without an outside body reviewing it before market. The default for most Annex III high-risk systems.
The conformity assessment procedure that does not involve a notified body. The provider assesses its own system against Section 2 requirements, draws up technical documentation and a QMS, and issues the EU declaration of conformity on its own authority. Required for Annex III points 2 to 8 systems.
The conformity assessment procedure in which the provider itself verifies and documents conformity with Section 2 requirements without third-party notified body involvement. Available for Annex III points 2 to 8 high-risk AI systems when harmonized standards are applied (Article 43(2)).
Where it is taught
The exact lessons this term appears in. The first module of every program is free with a free account.
- The conformity file: assembling the evidence for the system you shipped in Module 3 · The EU AI Act: The Executive Map, Certified AI Governance Professional (CAIGP)
- Conformity Assessment Routes (Articles 43 to 47) · Standards and Conformity Assessment, EU AI Act Implementation Expert
- Notified Bodies: Selection and Engagement · Standards and Conformity Assessment, EU AI Act Implementation Expert
- Audit Preparation: Facing the Notified Body · Capstone: The Compliance Portfolio, EU AI Act Implementation Expert
Where it shows up at work
A definition is where Annex VI (internal control) starts. The lessons above teach it inside the competencies below, which are what job descriptions ask for and what the GAGE credential records. Every link here is drawn from the same careers map that builds a role's readiness check.
Decides what a person affected by an AI decision must be told, how an output can be explained, and how they can challenge it.
2 lessons on this page teach it as a primary outcome.
Classifies a system by role and risk tier, knows which obligations bind on which date after the Digital Omnibus, and what evidence conformity needs.
One lesson on this page teach it as a primary outcome.
Turns controls into enforceable obligations: data use, change notice, audit rights, incident duties, subcontractors, IP, exit and deletion.
One lesson on this page teach it as a primary outcome.
Roles that hire for it
Each role page shows the full competency set, what the seat decides, and a readiness check against your own evidence.
- AI Regulatory Counselneeds it at depth · 14 open postings this week
- AI Compliance Managerneeds it at depth · 2 open postings this week
- Responsible AI Leadneeds it at depth · 7 open postings this week
- Chief Privacy Officer, AI privacy editionneeds working knowledge
- Senior AI Compliance Analystneeds it at depth
- AI Compliance Specialistneeds working knowledge · 1 open posting this week
How job descriptions say it
Postings rarely use the textbook word. These are the phrases the careers map reads as asking for the competencies above.
Where the frameworks place it: EU AI Act Articles 13 and 50; NIST AI RMF trustworthiness characteristics; Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; Regulation (EU) 2026/1744.
One interview question about it
A customer asks why the model decided against them. What can you explain, what can you not, and how can they contest it?
Asked of candidates for explainability, transparency and contestability. Answering it in your own words is exactly how a GAGE topic is passed, and the credential records the pass where an employer can check it.
If you come from another field
Some backgrounds already carry this competency, and the readiness check gives credit for it.
- A law degree (JD, LLB or LLM), no AI work yet carries it as a claim to back up: The EU AI Act reads like the statutes you were trained on; the content is new, the method is not.
- Legal and paralegal work carries it as work you can show: Contract terms are your product.
Terms it appears with
Not an alphabetical neighbourhood: these are the terms taught in the same lessons, ranked by how often they appear together.