Intended purpose
The intended purpose is the use for which the provider intends an AI system, including the specific context and conditions of use, as specified in the instructions for use, promotional or sales materials, and the technical documentation. Classification — including the high-risk determination — attaches to the intended purpose, not to the underlying technology.
The concept is set out in Article 3(12). Its practical significance is that the very same technology can face an entirely different legal fate depending on what it is intended for: a general-purpose AI assistant is not, by itself, high-risk, but if the provider — or a company that repurposes it — configures it for CV screening or candidate evaluation, it falls under point 4 of Annex III. The intended purpose is not determined by the actual user's private intention but by the purpose the provider has documented and communicated externally — which is why the instructions for use, marketing materials and technical documentation must be consistent with one another. If a deployer uses a system in a way that substantially deviates from its intended purpose, this can trigger a transfer of provider status under Article 25. The concept of intended purpose is closely tied to reasonably foreseeable misuse: together they mark the boundary of the provider's responsibility and the point where the deployer's own risk begins.
For an SME, role classification often turns on intended purpose: the same purchased AI tool used out of the box versus configured for HR decision-making carries entirely different obligations.
Need documented AI-literacy training?
Article 4 is a duty of diligence: what counts is not knowledge in the abstract, but demonstrable, documented effort. Our starter package lets you begin free.
Start freeRelated terms
- AI systemAn AI system is a machine-based system that operates with varying levels of autonomy and, from the input it receives, infers how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. The decisive test is inferential capability — a deterministic, human-authored rule set is not an AI system merely because it automates a task.
- Reasonably foreseeable misuseReasonably foreseeable misuse means the use of an AI system in a way that is not in accordance with its intended purpose, but which may result from reasonably foreseeable human behaviour or interaction with other systems, including other AI systems. Providers must account for this in risk management and design, not only for the intended use.
- Substantial modificationA substantial modification is a change to an AI system after it has been placed on the market or put into service, which is not foreseen or planned in the initial conformity assessment, and which affects compliance with the high-risk requirements or modifies the intended purpose for which it was assessed. Anyone who makes a substantial modification to a system already on the market becomes a provider under Article 25.
- High-risk AI systemAn AI system is high-risk if it is a safety component of, or is itself, a product covered by the Union product-safety legislation listed in Annex I, or if it falls within one of the eight areas and listed use cases of Annex III. Classification attaches to the intended purpose, not to the underlying technology.
Related questions in the knowledge base (Hungarian)
- Mikor nem magas kockázatú egy olyan AI-rendszer, amely a III. melléklet alá esne?Akkor, ha nem jelent jelentős kockázatot az egészségre, a biztonságra vagy az alapvető jogokra, és teljesül a 6. cikk (3) négy esete közül legalább egy: szűk eljárási feladat, befejezett emberi tevékenység eredményének javítása, döntési minták észlelése emberi felülvizsgálat mellett, vagy előkészítő feladat. Profilalkotásnál viszont ez a kiút zárva van.
- Magas kockázatúvá teszi-e a ChatGPT vagy a Copilot vállalati használata a cégünket?Önmagában nem. Ha a munkatársak az általános asszisztenst szövegírásra, összefoglalásra vagy kódolásra használják, a rendszer nem lesz magas kockázatú. A felhasználás módja viszont átbillentheti: ha a HR-osztály önéletrajz-rangsoroló folyamatba építi, a rendeltetés a III. melléklet 4. pontja alá kerül, és a cég szolgáltatóvá is átminősülhet.
- Hogyan soroljuk be az AI-rendszerünket lépésről lépésre úgy, hogy a hatóság előtt is védhető legyen?Hét lépéses, dokumentált döntési fa vezet védhető eredményre: hatály, AI-rendszer-e, szerepkör, tiltott-e, I. melléklet, III. melléklet, végül a 6. cikk (3) szűrő és az 50. cikk átfedése. A védhetőséget nem a következtetés adja, hanem hogy minden csomóponthoz van datált, aláírt indokolás és verziókövetés. A hatóság a folyamatot kéri, nem a végeredményt.