Article 13 for Education AI: Transparency and Information to Deployers

Article 13 sets duties for the provider. Its addressee is the deployer, such as a school, university or examination body.

• Art. 13(1)
  Sufficiently transparent to interpret the output

  High-risk systems must be designed and developed so that their operation is sufficiently transparent to enable deployers to interpret a system’s output and use it appropriately. An appropriate type and degree of transparency must be ensured with a view to achieving compliance with the relevant obligations of the provider and deployer set out in Section 3.

• Art. 13(2)
  Instructions for use

  High-risk systems must be accompanied by instructions for use in an appropriate digital format or otherwise. They include concise, complete, correct and clear information that is relevant, accessible and comprehensible to deployers.

• Art. 13(3)(a)–(c)
  Identity, performance and risks

  The instructions contain at least: (a) the identity and contact details of the provider and, where applicable, of its authorised representative; (b) the characteristics, capabilities and limitations of performance, including (i) the intended purpose, (ii) the level of accuracy, including its metrics, robustness and cybersecurity under Article 15 against which the system was tested and validated and which can be expected, and any known and foreseeable circumstances that may affect that level, and (iii) any known or foreseeable circumstance of use that may lead to risks to health and safety or fundamental rights referred to in Article 9(2); (c) the changes to the system and its performance that the provider pre-determined at the initial conformity assessment, if any.

• Art. 13(3)(b)(iv)–(vii)
  Items that depend on the system

  Also part of point (b), with the Act’s own conditions: (iv) where applicable, the technical capabilities and characteristics of the system to provide information that is relevant to explain its output; (v) when appropriate, its performance regarding specific persons or groups of persons on which the system is intended to be used; (vi) when appropriate, specifications for the input data, or other relevant information on the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended purpose; (vii) where applicable, information to enable deployers to interpret the output and use it appropriately.

• Art. 13(3)(d)–(f)
  Oversight, resources and logs

  The instructions also contain: (d) the human oversight measures referred to in Article 14, including the technical measures put in place to facilitate the interpretation of the outputs by deployers; (e) the computational and hardware resources needed, the expected lifetime of the system and any necessary maintenance and care measures, including their frequency, including as regards software updates; (f) where relevant, a description of the mechanisms included in the system that allow deployers to properly collect, store and interpret the logs in accordance with Article 12.

Article 13 applies to high-risk AI systems only. The rows below show where education AI becomes high-risk and whom the information must reach.

• The Act has no sector-wide education regime

  The Act has no sector-wide education regime. Annex III, point 3 is the high-risk area headed “Education and vocational training”. This site uses the word education for AI that reaches the Act through that point. Point 3 lists four uses. (a) AI systems intended to be used to determine access or admission or to assign natural persons to educational and vocational training institutions at all levels. (b) AI systems intended to be used to evaluate learning outcomes, including when those outcomes are used to steer the learning process of natural persons. (c) AI systems intended to be used for the purpose of assessing the appropriate level of education that an individual will receive or will be able to access. (d) AI systems intended to be used for monitoring and detecting prohibited behaviour of students during tests. Each use is tied to educational and vocational training institutions at all levels. Point 3 does not name plagiarism or AI-text detection, dropout prediction, learning dashboards, administrative chatbots or adaptive learning as such. A system for one of these uses is high-risk only if its intended purpose matches one of the four uses, or if another point of Annex III or Annex I covers it.

• Inferring emotions in education institutions: prohibited, with a medical or safety exception

  Article 5(1), point (f) prohibits placing on the market, putting into service for this specific purpose, or using AI systems to infer emotions of a natural person in the areas of workplace and education institutions, except where the use of the AI system is intended to be put in place or into the market for medical or safety reasons. The prohibition applies from 2 February 2025 (Article 113, point (a)). It is a prohibition, not a high-risk use: the exception creates no obligation and is not an Annex III hook. A breach is fined up to EUR 35 million or, for an undertaking, up to 7% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher (Article 99(3)). For SMEs, including start-ups, each fine is up to whichever of the two is lower (Article 99(6)).

• Article 6(3) can take a system out of Annex III

  A system under point 3 is high-risk under Article 6(2). By derogation, an Annex III system is not high-risk under Article 6(3) where it does not pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons, including by not materially influencing the outcome of decision making. That applies where any one of four conditions is fulfilled: (a) the system is intended to perform a narrow procedural task; (b) it is intended to improve the result of a previously completed human activity; (c) it is intended to detect decision-making patterns or deviations from prior decision-making patterns and is not meant to replace or influence the previously completed human assessment, without proper human review; or (d) it is intended to perform a preparatory task to an assessment relevant for the use cases listed in Annex III. An Annex III system is always high-risk where it performs profiling of natural persons (Article 3(52), Article 4(4) GDPR). A provider that considers its Annex III system not high-risk documents its assessment before the system is placed on the market or put into service and registers it (Article 6(4), Article 49(2)). Whether a given education system performs profiling is a question for counsel.

• Provider and deployer

  The provider develops an AI system, or has it developed, and places it on the market or puts it into service under its own name or trademark (Article 3(3)). Putting into service includes supply for own use (Article 3(11)). A school, university or examination body that uses a system under its authority is a deployer (Article 3(4)). A university that develops a system and puts it into service for its own use under its own name is therefore a provider. A deployer becomes the provider of a high-risk system in three cases: it puts its name or trademark on a system already on the market, without prejudice to contractual arrangements that allocate the obligations otherwise; it makes a substantial modification that leaves the system high-risk; or it modifies the intended purpose of a non-high-risk system so that it becomes high-risk (Article 25(1)).

• Information to students: Article 26(11) and Article 86, not Article 13

  Article 13 does not require notice to students or parents. Under Article 26(11), and without prejudice to Article 50, deployers of high-risk systems referred to in Annex III that make decisions or assist in making decisions related to natural persons shall inform the natural persons that they are subject to the use of the high-risk AI system. Article 86(1) gives any affected person subject to a decision taken by the deployer on the basis of the output of an Annex III system (except point 2) that produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights the right to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken. Article 86(2) and (3) set exceptions. Article 85 lets any natural or legal person who has grounds to consider that the Act was infringed submit a complaint to the market surveillance authority.

• Dates

  Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3, which include Articles 9 to 15, 17, 26 and 27, apply to AI systems classified as high-risk under Article 6(2) and Annex III from 2 December 2027 (Article 113, point (c)(i)). A high-risk system placed on the market or put into service before that date is covered only if, from that date, its design undergoes significant changes. In any case, the providers and deployers of high-risk systems intended to be used by public authorities shall take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements and obligations of the Act by 2 August 2030 (Article 111(2)). The Act does not state whether this also applies to systems placed on the market or put into service after 2 December 2027; that is a question for counsel.

• Fines

  Providers must ensure that their high-risk systems meet the requirements of Section 2 of Chapter III, which includes Articles 9 to 15 (Article 16, point (a)). A breach of the provider obligations in Article 16 or of the deployer obligations in Article 26 can be fined up to EUR 15 million or, if the offender is an undertaking, up to 3% of its total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher (Article 99(4), points (a) and (e)). For SMEs, including start-ups, each fine is up to whichever of the two is lower (Article 99(6)). The same applies to small mid-cap enterprises (Article 3(14b), Article 99(6a)). Each Member State lays down to what extent fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies (Article 99(8)).

• Systems and uses outside the Act

  The Act applies to providers placing AI systems on the market or putting them into service in the Union, wherever they are established, and to providers and deployers in a third country where the output of the AI system is used in the Union (Article 2(1), points (a) and (c)). It does not apply to areas outside the scope of Union law, and does not affect the competences of the Member States concerning national security (Article 2(3)). It does not apply to AI systems where and in so far they are placed on the market, put into service or used, with or without modification, exclusively for military, defence or national security purposes, nor to AI systems not placed on the market or put into service in the Union where the output is used in the Union exclusively for such purposes (Article 2(3)). It 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 (Article 2(6)). It does not apply to research, testing or development activity before a system is placed on the market or put into service; testing in real world conditions is not covered by that exclusion (Article 2(8)). It does not apply to obligations of deployers who are natural persons using AI systems in the course of a purely personal non-professional activity (Article 2(10)). AI systems released under free and open-source licences are outside the Act unless they are placed on the market or put into service as high-risk AI systems, or fall under Article 5 or 50 (Article 2(12)).

• No education-specific content for the instructions

  Article 13(3) is the same list for every sector. The Act does not say which groups of students the performance information must cover; it says “when appropriate” (Article 13(3), point (b)(v)). The Act itself names no standard. High-risk systems that conform to harmonised standards published in the Official Journal are presumed to conform to the requirements of Section 2, to the extent those standards cover them (Article 40(1)). The Commission develops guidelines on the application of Articles 8 to 15, 25 and 26 (Article 96(1), point (a)).

• Example: intended purpose in the instructions

  Example, not an Act requirement: for a system that supports staff when they rank applications, the instructions could state in the intended purpose what the output is meant to be used for, so that the deployer can use it appropriately (Article 13(3), point (b)(i)).

• Example: known circumstances for test monitoring

  Example, not an Act requirement: for a system that detects prohibited behaviour during tests, the instructions could name known circumstances that may affect accuracy, such as the conditions in which it was tested and validated (Article 13(3), point (b)(ii)).

• EU AI Act Article 13: Transparency and Instructions for Use

  Article 13 for all sectors: the requirements, dates and fines.

• EU AI Act Compliance for Education Technology

  The education overview: how the Act reaches admission, grading, level-assessment and test-monitoring AI.

• Article 14 for Education AI: Human Oversight

  Education AI and Article 14: human oversight by design.

• Article 26: Deployer Obligations for High-Risk AI

  What deployers of high-risk AI systems must do, including informing affected persons.