What counts as social scoring under the EU AI Act?
The system being classified
You operate a system that scores individuals on general social behaviour or personal characteristics, and the score affects how they are treated in unrelated contexts.
Prohibited practice
One or more selected practices are banned outright under Article 5. Deployment in the EU must stop; continuing exposes you to the maximum fine tier.
This is the classification of the configuration described above, not of your system. One different answer can move it — which is exactly what the comparison further down shows, and what the free assessment settles in about ten minutes.
What produced this verdict
These are the entire inputs. The engine is deterministic, so these answers always produce the verdict above.
Article 5 practices
- · Social scoring by general behaviour or characteristics
Scope and role
- · Deployer — you use it under your own authority
- · Placed on the EU market, or output used in the EU
What applies, and from when (2)
Every entry cites the article it comes from and the date it binds. That second column is the part most summaries of the Omnibus get wrong.
| Article | Obligation | Binding from |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 4 | AI literacy Ensure staff dealing with AI systems have a sufficient level of AI literacy (training records recommended). | 2 February 2025 |
| Best practice | AI system inventory Maintain a central register of all AI systems in use, their purpose, risk tier and owner. | Good practice |
What would change this verdict
Each row below is the same scenario with one answer changed, re-run through the same engine. These are not predictions about your system; they are what our classifier returns when that single fact differs. Where one change to the scenario necessarily moves a second answer with it, the row says which, and why.
The scoring is confined to one service and its own data
Becomes high-risk systemThe prohibition turns on detrimental treatment in unrelated contexts, or treatment disproportionate to the behaviour. A scorecard built from a customer's own conduct in the same service is a different question.
Two answers move together here: Leaving the prohibition behind still leaves a score that gates access to the service, which is its own Annex III category — so both answers move together.
- Obligations: 2 → 9 (+7)
- Key date changes to 2 December 2027 — Annex III high-risk obligations apply (postponed from 2 August 2026 by the 2026 Omnibus)
Your system is not this system
The assessment asks the same questions this page answered for a generic configuration, and produces the verdict, the gap list and the 30-day plan for yours. Ten minutes, free, no sign-up, and it runs entirely in your browser — your answers never reach us.
Classify your own system →Other configurations
Annex III point 5(b) covers creditworthiness but expressly excludes AI used to detect financial fraud. The engine's verdict for a fraud system, and where the exclusion stops.
Most industrial AI is minimal risk, and the honest answer is a short one. What still applies — including the Article 4 literacy duty that has been live since February 2025.
A CV-screening or candidate-ranking system classified by the AnnexWise engine: risk tier, every applicable obligation with the date it binds, and what would change the verdict.
The obligations that land on the employer deploying a third-party AI hiring tool, as opposed to the vendor building it — computed by the AnnexWise engine, article by article.
Produced by rule set 1.6.1, legal state 2026-08-05. The engine is deterministic and contains no language model in the verdict path, and every rule is published at /methodology for you to audit.
AnnexWise is preparation software, not legal advice. This page classifies a described configuration; it is not an opinion on any particular organisation or system.