Human oversight, privacy, access boundaries and approvals belong in the process design.
Agree on responsibilities, data access and approvals together.
Decisions with material consequences require proportionate human oversight and named owners.
Data minimisation, purpose-based sources and role-based access reduce unnecessary exposure.
The GDPR, EU AI Act and other rules may create different obligations. We do not claim blanket legal compliance. This content is not legal advice.
People define objectives and boundaries, review sensitive outcomes, handle exceptions and can correct or stop a workflow. Oversight is effective only when the accountable person can understand the outcome and visible uncertainty, reject or correct it and intervene in time. An approval click alone does not demonstrate effective oversight.
Its form and position follow the purpose, people affected, possible impact, reversibility and detectability of an error. Each control point names the role, required context, authority, escalation, stop and fallback path.
Article 14 of the EU AI Act sets specific human-oversight requirements for covered high-risk AI systems. Whether a concrete system falls within scope and when duties apply depends on role, purpose and context of use.
The EU AI Act applies in stages and distinguishes roles, risk classes and contexts of use. Current official texts, current implementation guidance from the European Commission and qualified case-specific review are decisive.
Content updated on .
Editorially reviewed on .
We begin with the work, the people and the current process — then assess which form of AI genuinely makes sense.
