By industry · Written by Yobel Tzegai · Last checked 9 October 2026

Is AI in education high-risk under the EU AI Act?

Education AI under the EU AI Act: admission, grading, level placement and proctoring are high-risk (point 3 of Annex III); emotion inference is banned.

Check your AI systems, free Book a 30-minute walkthrough

The answer, in detail

Where an education use usually sits
Use	Usual outcome	Provision	Applies from
Admission, or assigning students to institutions	High-risk	Point 3(a) of Annex III	2 December 2027, under Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), as replaced
Grading, or evaluating learning outcomes	High-risk	Point 3(b) of Annex III	2 December 2027, under the same point
Placing a student at a level of education	High-risk	Point 3(c) of Annex III	2 December 2027, under the same point
Proctoring tests for prohibited behaviour	High-risk	Point 3(d) of Annex III	2 December 2027, under the same point
Inferring students’ or staff’s emotions	Prohibited, except for medical or safety reasons	Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (f)	2 February 2025, under Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), as replaced
A tutoring chatbot	Transparency duties for its provider	Article 50(1); Article 50(2) for the text it generates	2 August 2026, under Article 113, second paragraph; Article 50(2) by 2 December 2026 for a system placed on the market before 2 August 2026 (Article 111(4))

Which education systems are high-risk?

The four uses point 3 of Annex III lists.
A provider who considers one of them not high-risk under Article 6(3) documents that assessment before placing it on the market or putting it into service (Article 6(4)): when the Article 6(3) exemption applies.
Chapter III, Sections 1, 2 and 3, which hold the high-risk requirements and the deployer duties of Article 26, apply from 2 December 2027 for systems classified as high-risk under Article 6(2) and Annex III, with the exception of Article 6(5) (Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), as replaced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).

Point 3 of Annex III, at educational and vocational training institutions at all levels: AI systems intended to be used to determine access or admission or to assign natural persons to institutions (point (a)); to evaluate learning outcomes, including when those outcomes are used to steer the learning process (point (b)); to assess the appropriate level of education that an individual will receive or will be able to access (point (c)); and to monitor and detect prohibited behaviour of students during tests (point (d)).

Who owes what, the school or the edtech company?

The edtech company that places the system on the market is its provider, and the school or university that uses it is its deployer.
Where the school or university is a body governed by public law, or a private entity providing public services, Article 27(1) has it assess the impact on fundamental rights before deploying the system.
Every paragraph, with its exceptions: what a deployer owes under Article 26.

Article 27(1): before deploying a high-risk AI system referred to in Article 6(2), deployers that are bodies governed by public law or private entities providing public services, and deployers of systems in points 5(b) and (c) of Annex III, perform an assessment of the impact on fundamental rights, with the exception of systems intended to be used in the area in point 2 of Annex III.
Article 26(11): a deployer of an Annex III system that makes or assists in making decisions related to natural persons informs them that they are subject to its use, without prejudice to Article 50. For high-risk systems used for law enforcement purposes, Article 13 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 applies.

What applies to every use?

Article 4 on AI literacy for teachers and staff, and the prohibitions.
Chapters I and II, which hold Articles 4 and 5, apply from 2 February 2025 (Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), as replaced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).
That point keeps two later dates: Article 5(1), first subparagraph, points (ba) and (bb) apply from 2 December 2026, as do Article 5(1a) and (1b).

Article 4(1), as replaced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744: providers and deployers of AI systems take measures to support the development of AI literacy of their staff and of other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, taking into account their technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context of use, and considering the persons or groups of persons on whom the systems are to be used. The obligation does not require them to guarantee any specific level of AI literacy of any individual.
Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (f): placing on the market, putting into service for this specific purpose or using AI systems to infer the emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions is prohibited, except where the use is intended to be put in place or into the market for medical or safety reasons.

Your customer asks. You answer with proof.

1List every AI system
Illustration · not your dataSystem Customer support chatbotClass Limited risk · Article 50(1)
Add the AI you use. Each system gets a role, a risk class and the article it rests on.
Live
2Attach the proof
Illustration · not your dataDuty Article 26(6), keep the logsProof logging-policy.pdf · page 3
Link each duty to a file and the page it stands on: a policy, a log setting, a training record.
Live
3Answer their questionnaire
Illustration · not your dataQuestion Do you log AI decisions?Answer drafted from your own proof
Answering a customer's questionnaire inside the app, from the proof you already linked.
Coming soon

What Complipath does

Risk classification Answers go through rules in code, never a language model, so the same answers always give the same result. Rules decide. AI only drafts. A person confirms.
AI inventory Every AI system you build or use, with its owner and risk class
AI literacy (Article 4) Records who was trained on what and when, against the Article 4 duty to support AI literacy, which applies whatever your risk level
Obligations per system Confirming a classification creates the obligations that follow from it, each with an owner, a status and a place for evidence
Annex IV documentation A workspace for the technical documentation, section by section, saying which Annex IV points each one answers

Rules decide. AI only drafts. A person confirms.

What it does not do yet

Fundamental rights impact assessment (Article 27) Not supported The step-by-step plan lists Article 27 as a step only for systems classified under points 5(b) and 5(c) of Annex III. Article 27(1) also binds deployers that are bodies governed by public law or private entities providing public services, and the product does not ask whether you are one. Nothing carries the assessment itself.
Conformity assessment (Article 43) Not supported We found no support for this in what we have built. The same search found the number in one file — a comment using it as an example of the Official Journal's citation form — and the words in six, every one of them quoting Article 6(1), point (b)'s third-party condition, an Article 5 sentence or a section name. No template, no column, no limb.
Domain-specific guidance Not supported Guidance written for one sector.

What is live today

Checked against the app on 8 October 2026

AI inventoryLive
Risk classificationLive
Article mappingLive
Obligations per systemLive
DeadlinesLive
Annex IV documentationLive
Documentation draftingLive
Regulatory change monitoringLive
Named ownersLive
Export (PDF, JSON, spreadsheet)Live
Evidence managementLive
DashboardLive
AI literacy (Article 4)Live
Two-factor sign-inLive
Audit logLive
Audit packComing soon
Customer questionnaires (audit room)Coming soon
Domain-specific guidanceNot supported
Full risk-management lifecycleNot supported
Conformity assessment (Article 43)Not supported
Post-market monitoring (Article 72)Not supported
Serious incident reporting (Article 73)Not supported
Fundamental rights impact assessment (Article 27)Not supported
Declaration of conformity (Article 47)Not supported
EU database registration (Article 49)Not supported
ISO/IEC 42001 mappingNot supported
Vendor managementLive

Starter

€499 a month

Prices exclude VAT.

Up to 20 AI systems
Every duty, deadline and article
Evidence and the audit log
Your first system is free, with no end date

Check your AI systems, free

All plans

Questions

Is an AI tool that helps teachers grade essays high-risk?

If it is intended to evaluate learning outcomes at an educational institution, it is in point 3(b) of Annex III. Article 6(3) can take it out where, for example, it only improves the result of a previously completed human activity, but never where it profiles natural persons, and the provider documents that assessment before placing it on the market (Article 6(4)).

Can we use AI to detect whether students are paying attention?

Not by inferring their emotions. Article 5(1), first subparagraph, point (f) prohibits AI systems that infer the emotions of a natural person in education institutions, except where intended for medical or safety reasons. Monitoring for prohibited behaviour during tests is a different use, and high-risk under point 3(d) of Annex III.