[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":90},["ShallowReactive",2],{"uc-eu-ai-act-capital-markets":3},{"regulation":4,"term":11,"includeUnpublished":15,"indexable":16,"useCases":17,"asOf":89},{"id":5,"label":6,"issuer":7,"region":8,"url":9,"description":10},"eu-ai-act","EU AI Act","European Union","europe","https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2024\u002F1689\u002Foj","Regulation (EU) 2024\u002F1689: risk based rules for AI systems, with obligations for high risk systems listed in Annex III and transparency duties under Article 50.",{"id":12,"label":13,"description":14},"capital-markets","Capital markets","Investment banks, brokers, exchanges and custodians: research, trading support, post trade operations and surveillance.",false,true,[18,24,29,33,39,43,47,51,56,60,64,68,72,76,80,85],{"slug":19,"title":20,"tier":21,"basis":22,"organizations":23},"settlement-fail-prediction-and-exception-management","AI for settlement fail prediction and post trade exception management","context-dependent","Predicting settlement fails and handling post trade exceptions between professional market participants is not a use listed in Annex III and is not a prohibited practice under Article 5, so the tier depends on how the agent communicates. While an operator reviews and sends every message, the system is minimal risk: the messages are the firm's own correspondence and the firm as deployer owes AI literacy for staff (Article 4). Once the agent sends queries or chasers to counterparty or custodian staff itself, as the playbook recommends for routine information requests, it interacts directly with natural persons and Article 50(1) requires telling the recipients they are dealing with an AI system. In both designs the provider of the text generating system must mark its output as AI generated in a machine readable format under Article 50(2). Model risk and operational resilience controls apply on top.",3,{"slug":25,"title":26,"tier":21,"basis":27,"organizations":28},"market-abuse-surveillance-triage","AI for market abuse surveillance alert triage","Surveillance of orders and transactions as such is not listed in Annex III. Where the system monitors and evaluates the behavior of the firm's own staff, in their communications or their trading, it can fall under Annex III point 4(b) (AI used to monitor and evaluate the performance and behavior of persons in work relationships), so the tier depends on whether the system scores individual employees. Inferring employees' emotions from biometric data such as voice recordings is prohibited in the workplace under Article 5(1)(f).",2,{"slug":30,"title":31,"tier":21,"basis":32,"organizations":28},"investment-research-summarization","AI summaries of investment research and the house view","Summarizing research for staff is not an Annex III use and is not a practice prohibited by Article 5, so the tier turns on the firm's role under Article 50. It is minimal for a purchased internal tool with no client or public facing exposure. Article 50 transparency applies when the firm builds the generating system itself, which brings the Article 50(2) duty to mark synthetic text in a machine readable format; when the assistant is offered to clients as a chatbot, which brings the Article 50(1) duty to tell them they are interacting with AI; or when AI generated text is published to inform the public on matters of public interest, which brings the Article 50(4) disclosure duty unless the text has gone through human review or editorial control and a person holds editorial responsibility for it.",{"slug":34,"title":35,"tier":36,"basis":37,"organizations":38},"developer-coding-assistant","AI coding assistant for software developers","minimal","A coding assistant used by developers is not a prohibited practice under Article 5 and is not listed in Annex III. Developers know they are working with an AI tool, so the Article 50 disclosure duty has no practical effect for the deploying organization, and the marking of generated content under Article 50(2) falls on the tool's provider. What remains is AI literacy (Article 4). Using an AI system to monitor or evaluate individual developers' performance would fall under Annex III point 4(b), and the software the assistant helps build may itself fall under the Act.",1,{"slug":40,"title":41,"tier":21,"basis":42,"organizations":38},"business-onboarding-and-ubo-discovery","AI for business onboarding (KYB) and beneficial ownership discovery","Customer due diligence on legal entities is not listed in Annex III, and an internal analyst tool usually carries no Article 50 transparency duty, so the system is usually minimal risk. The design decides the rest: biometric verification that only confirms a director is who they claim to be is excluded from Annex III point 1(a), but remote biometric identification (one to many matching) is high risk, and so is any use of the output to assess the creditworthiness of the natural persons involved (point 5(b)). GDPR applies to the personal data of owners and directors throughout. Keep biometric and credit steps in separately assessed components.",{"slug":44,"title":45,"tier":36,"basis":46,"organizations":38},"legacy-code-modernization","AI for legacy code modernization","Tools that analyze, document and translate code are not prohibited practices under Article 5 and are not listed in Annex III, so no high risk obligations apply to the tooling. Engineers and analysts know they are working with an AI tool, including when they query the documentation through a chat assistant, so the Article 50 disclosure duty has no practical effect for the deploying organization. What remains is AI literacy for the staff who use it (Article 4). If the system being modernized is itself an AI system in an Annex III area (for example creditworthiness assessment, point 5(b)), its new version still has to meet the high risk requirements.",{"slug":48,"title":49,"tier":36,"basis":50,"organizations":38},"internal-audit-copilot","Generative AI copilot for internal audit","An internal drafting and analysis assistant for auditors that makes no decisions about natural persons. It would need reassessment if used to evaluate individual employees' behavior or performance, which falls under Annex III point 4(b).",{"slug":52,"title":53,"tier":36,"basis":54,"organizations":55},"earnings-call-and-text-analysis-for-investment-signals","AI analysis of earnings calls and other text for investment signals","An internal research tool that scores companies for a firm's own portfolio managers is not listed in Annex III and is not a practice prohibited by Article 5. It carries no Article 50 transparency duty: those disclosure obligations, including the Article 50(2) marking duty on providers of systems that generate text, apply to content or interactions shown to a customer or the public, and this tool's output never leaves the firm's own research process; the portfolio manager, not the model, remains accountable for any resulting investment decision.",0,{"slug":57,"title":58,"tier":21,"basis":59,"organizations":55},"deal-sourcing-and-due-diligence-assistant","AI assistant for deal sourcing and M&A due diligence","Decision support for professional investors and advisers about companies is not a use listed in Annex III and is not a practice prohibited by Article 5. The users are deal professionals who know they are working with an AI tool, and no consumer interacts with it, so the Article 50(1) duty to disclose an AI interaction has little practical effect. Article 50(2) is different: a firm that builds the assistant itself, including on a platform such as Blits.ai and putting it into service under its own name, is the provider of that system and must mark generated text in a machine readable format, unless the system only performs an assistive function for standard editing or does not substantially alter the input data or its semantics, which may cover extraction and redaction. A firm that instead licenses a vendor product, such as Datasite or Rogo, should confirm that the vendor meets this duty. Obligations are otherwise general: AI literacy for the deal team under Article 4 and, where personal data in the data room is processed, the GDPR.",{"slug":61,"title":62,"tier":36,"basis":63,"organizations":55},"client-briefing-and-call-report-copilot","AI copilot for corporate client briefings and call reports","Bankers interact with the copilot directly, but Article 50(1) does not bite here: it requires telling people they are dealing with an AI system unless that is obvious to a reasonably well informed person, and an internal tool that is openly presented and labeled as an AI assistant meets that bar by design. The copilot never interacts with the client. Article 50(2) marking of generated text falls on the provider of the system, including a bank that builds it in house, but the copilot turns a banker's own notes into a call report, an assistive function for standard editing of the banker's input that does not substantially alter it, so the Article 50(2) exception applies and no machine readable marking is required. It is not an Annex III use: credit context about corporate clients is not the creditworthiness assessment of natural persons in Annex III point 5(b), so it falls outside the high risk tier. If a deployment starts to score individuals for credit, the tier changes. AI literacy duties under Article 4 still apply. If meeting capture is used, recording and transcription rules under data protection law apply separately.",{"slug":65,"title":66,"tier":36,"basis":67,"organizations":55},"model-risk-validation-copilot","AI copilot for model risk validation and monitoring","A validation copilot supports internal governance and is not itself an Annex III use, and its drafts are internal, so Article 50 transparency duties do not normally apply. It often helps validate models that are high risk under Annex III (point 5(b), creditworthiness and credit scoring of natural persons; point 5(c), life and health insurance pricing), and the testing and documentation it supports feed the provider obligations of Articles 9, 11 and 15.",{"slug":69,"title":70,"tier":21,"basis":71,"organizations":55},"continuous-controls-testing","AI for continuous controls testing and control self assessment","Testing controls over transactions and systems is not an Annex III use. Controls that monitor and evaluate individual employees' behavior, such as trading or access conduct, can fall under Annex III point 4(b), so the design decides the tier.",{"slug":73,"title":74,"tier":36,"basis":75,"organizations":55},"ledger-and-payment-reconciliation","AI for ledger and payment reconciliation","Matching entries between internal financial records is not a use listed in Annex III and is not a practice prohibited by Article 5. Operators knowingly use an internal AI tool, so no Article 50(1) disclosure is needed. If a generative model drafts the explanations or journals, the provider of that system may have to mark its output as AI generated under Article 50(2). The AI literacy duty of Article 4 applies to the bank as deployer.",{"slug":77,"title":78,"tier":36,"basis":79,"organizations":55},"policy-drafting-and-gap-analysis","AI for policy drafting and policy gap analysis","Drafting internal policy text for human approval is not an Annex III use and has no direct effect on individuals. The Article 4 AI literacy measures still apply to the staff who use it.",{"slug":81,"title":82,"tier":83,"basis":84,"organizations":55},"regulatory-report-assembly","AI for regulatory report assembly","limited","Not an Article 5 practice and not listed in Annex III: the system prepares filings for authorities and makes no decision on the credit, insurance, employment or access to services of a natural person. It is an internal tool whose users know they are working with AI, and drafted text that ends up in public disclosures passes human review under a named person's editorial responsibility, which takes it outside the Article 50(4) deployer disclosure duty. The system still drafts variance commentary and plain language explanations of validation failures from underlying data, rather than lightly editing existing text, so the assistive function for standard editing exception does not fit. The bank that builds or operates the system is then the provider and carries the Article 50(2) duty to mark that generated text in a machine readable way as artificially generated, which has applied since 2 August 2026. The AI literacy duty of Article 4 also applies.",{"slug":86,"title":87,"tier":36,"basis":88,"organizations":55},"supervisory-exam-response-assembly","AI for supervisory exam and information request responses","Drafting regulatory correspondence for human approval is not an Annex III use. The main risks are confidentiality and accuracy, which are handled by supervisory information rules, data protection law and internal controls.","2026-09-29",1792420066588]