Skip to content
EU AI Act · EU-AI-ACT-ART-26-2-HUMAN-OVERSIGHT-ASSIGNMENT

EU AI Act Article 26(2) — Deployer duty to assign human oversight to competent, trained and authorised persons

Deployers must assign human oversight of a high-risk AI system to named natural persons who have the competence, training, authority and support the role requires

HIGHRequirementGovernanceBinding regulationIn forceEnforceable from 2 August 2026

Where this comes from

Provision: Article 26(2) — Deployer duty to assign human oversight to competent, trained and authorised persons

Instrument: EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)

Citation: Article 26(2), with Article 26(3), Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

Text version: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), OJ L, 12.7.2024

Checked against the source: 2 September 2026

Read the official text ↗

Who it applies to

High-risk AI deployer in scope — all of these:

  • Service deploys AI systems in a professional capacity
  • AI Act role is Deployer or we provide some AI systems and deploy others

Annex III high-risk area (Art. 6(2)) — any one of these:

  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Biometrics
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Critical infrastructure
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Education and vocational training
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Employment and worker management
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Essential public services
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Creditworthiness
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Insurance
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Law enforcement
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Migration, asylum and border control
  • Annex III high-risk areas includes Administration of justice and democratic processes

…unless:

  • AI Act scope exclusion is used exclusively for military, defence or national-security purposes or developed and used solely for scientific research and development
  • Art. 2(3): the Regulation 'does not apply to AI systems where and in so far as they are placed on the market, put into service, or used with or without modification exclusively for military, defence or national security purposes'. (AI Act Art. 2(3))
  • Art. 2(6): the Regulation 'does not apply to AI systems or AI models, including their output, specifically developed and put into service for the sole purpose of scientific research and development'. (AI Act Art. 2(6))
  • Art. 6(3): an Annex III system is NOT high-risk where it does not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety or fundamental rights, including by not materially influencing the outcome of decision making — which applies where the system (a) performs... (AI Act Art. 6(3))

Scope in the source's own terms

  • Art. 2(1): the AI system is placed on the market or put into service in the Union, or the provider/deployer is established in the Union, or the output produced by the system is used in the Union
  • Art. 6(2): the AI system falls within an area listed in Annex III and is therefore high-risk, no documented Art. 6(3) derogation applying (and it is ALWAYS high-risk where it performs profiling of natural persons)
  • Art. 26(1), read with Art. 3(4): the actor is a 'deployer' — a natural or legal person using an AI system under its authority, other than in the course of a personal non-professional activity

What engineering work it implies

  • AI Literacy Programme (Role Matrix + Training Record)Covers part of it

    A lightweight process pattern for Article 4: a role matrix saying what each role must understand, a training record per person, and a gate that ties the oversight...

  • Human Oversight Gate (Review Queue with Stop and Override)Covers part of it

    A decision state machine that holds an automated decision as a proposal until a designated, competent reviewer releases, overrides or stops it — with an audit of who...

Sample acceptance criteria Landfall generates for this obligation:

  • A human reviewer can inspect the inputs, the output and the rationale for an automated decision before it takes effect
  • The reviewer is shown the system's capacities and limits and its declared accuracy, so disagreeing is a real option (Art. 14(4)(a), (c))
  • The reviewer can decide not to use the output, or to disregard, override or reverse it, without engineering intervention (Art. 14(4)(d))
  • A stop control halts the system, and it is reachable by the assigned person without a deploy (Art. 14(4)(e))
  • Oversight is assigned to named natural persons who have the competence, training and authority the role requires (Art. 26(2))

Evidence an auditor expects

  • Process recordDocument reviewReviewed on each change of assignee, and annually

    Human-oversight assignment record naming the responsible natural persons

    Record naming each natural person assigned oversight of the system, the authority delegated to them (expressly including authority to disregard, override, reverse or stop), and the support made available. Art. 26(2) requires competence, training AND authority together — an assignment without authority does not satisfy it

  • Training recordDocument review

    Competence and training record for the assigned overseers

    Per-person training record covering the system's capabilities and limitations as stated in the Art. 13 instructions for use, the Art. 14 oversight measures the provider specified, and automation bias

Questions people ask

Does EU AI Act Article 26(2) — Deployer duty to assign human oversight to competen… apply to my service?
It applies when Service deploys AI systems in a professional capacity; AI Act role is Deployer or we provide some AI systems and deploy others; and at least one of: Annex III high-risk areas includes Biometrics; Annex III high-risk areas includes Critical infrastructure; Annex III high-risk areas includes Education and vocational training; Annex III high-risk areas includes Employment and worker management; Annex III high-risk areas includes Essential public services; Annex III high-risk areas includes Creditworthiness; Annex III high-risk areas includes Insurance; Annex III high-risk areas includes Law enforcement; Annex III high-risk areas includes Migration, asylum and border control; Annex III high-risk areas includes Administration of justice and democratic processes. It does not apply where AI Act scope exclusion is used exclusively for military, defence or national-security purposes or developed and used solely for scientific research and development.
When does this become enforceable?
EU AI Act Article 26(2) — Deployer duty to assign human oversight to competen… is enforceable from 2 August 2026. Its current status is: in force.
What evidence does an auditor expect?
Human-oversight assignment record naming the responsible natural persons; Competence and training record for the assigned overseers.

Find out whether this one lands on you

Landfall's pre-scan answers the applicability question above for your product in minutes, then turns every obligation that applies into traceable engineering tickets with a citation chain your auditors can follow.

Not legal advice. Landfall maps regulatory obligations to engineering work for planning purposes. Its verdicts are not legal advice and create no attorney-client relationship — verify with qualified counsel before relying on them.

What Landfall Is NOT

Critical Boundaries

Understanding these boundaries is essential before using this product. Misuse of this tool for purposes outside its scope may create legal, regulatory, or commercial risk for your organization.

NOT Legal Advice

This product does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Interpretations are informational analysis, not legal counsel. Always consult qualified legal professionals for compliance decisions.

NOT a Risk Score

We do not quantify, calculate, or certify your compliance risk level.

No numerical risk rating, compliance percentage, or safety score. Risk assessment requires human judgment about your specific context.

NOT Runtime Enforcement

This is a planning and mapping tool, not a runtime enforcement system.

Does not integrate with your production systems. Does not block, filter, or enforce compliance in real-time. Implementation is your responsibility.

NOT Regulatory Approval

Using this tool does not mean you are compliant with any regulation.

No certification, seal of approval, or compliance guarantee. Regulators will evaluate your actual implementation, not your use of this tool.

NOT Authoritative Interpretation

Our interpretations are not binding and may differ from regulatory guidance.

Only regulators and courts provide authoritative interpretation. Our analysis reflects our reading of requirements, which may be incomplete or incorrect.

NOT a Safe Harbor

This tool does not shield you from enforcement actions or liability.

Documentation of your process is valuable, but does not constitute a legal defense. Compliance is ultimately your organization's responsibility.

NOT an AI Compliance Agent

AI features assist analysis but do not make compliance decisions for you.

AI-generated interpretations require human review and approval. Automated suggestions are starting points, not final answers.

NOT Complete Coverage

We do not cover all regulations, all obligations, or all jurisdictions.

Regulatory landscape is vast and evolving. Gaps in our coverage do not mean those requirements don't apply to you.

What This Tool IS:

  • A structured workflow for mapping regulatory requirements to implementation tasks
  • A documentation system for compliance decisions (audit trail)
  • A collaboration platform for compliance, legal, and engineering teams
  • An informational resource for understanding regulatory obligations