[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":153},["ShallowReactive",2],{"uc-eu-ai-act-wealth-and-asset-management":3},{"regulation":4,"term":11,"includeUnpublished":15,"indexable":16,"useCases":17,"asOf":152},{"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},"wealth-and-asset-management","Wealth and asset management","Private banks, wealth managers and asset managers, where AI supports advisers, research, portfolio operations and client reporting.",false,true,[18,24,29,35,40,44,48,53,58,62,66,70,74,79,83,87,91,95,99,103,107,112,116,120,124,128,132,136,140,144,148],{"slug":19,"title":20,"tier":21,"basis":22,"organizations":23},"wealth-advisor-knowledge-assistant","AI knowledge assistant for wealth advisors and relationship managers","limited","Article 50(1) requires that people who interact directly with an AI system are informed of it, unless this is obvious from the context, as it usually is for an internal assistant labeled as AI; Article 50(2) requires providers of systems that generate text to mark the output as AI generated in a machine readable way. Helping advisors find information is not an Annex III use and not a prohibited practice under Article 5. It would become high risk only if the system were used to evaluate the creditworthiness of clients (point 5(b)) or to evaluate or make decisions about advisors (point 4(b)). If the assistant were opened to clients, they would have to be told they are dealing with AI.",8,{"slug":25,"title":26,"tier":27,"basis":28,"organizations":23},"client-meeting-notes-and-crm-update","AI meeting notes and CRM update for wealth advisors","minimal","Transcribing and summarizing meetings for an employee is not a use listed in Annex III, and the advisor reviews every note before it is filed or sent. The tier would change if the tool inferred emotions: emotion recognition is high risk under Annex III point 1(c), and inferring the emotions of employees at work is prohibited under Article 5(1)(f). Both stay out of scope.",{"slug":30,"title":31,"tier":32,"basis":33,"organizations":34},"investment-research-summarization","AI summaries of investment research and the house view","context-dependent","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.",5,{"slug":36,"title":37,"tier":27,"basis":38,"organizations":39},"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.",4,{"slug":41,"title":42,"tier":32,"basis":43,"organizations":39},"next-best-action-for-advisors","AI next best action prompts for wealth advisors","Ranking investment and service prompts for an advisor is not listed in Annex III. It becomes high risk if the system evaluates the creditworthiness of natural persons, for example to decide which clients are offered lending (Annex III point 5(b)), so keep credit decisions out of the prompt engine. It is also high risk if the system itself is used to monitor or evaluate advisors' performance and behavior, for example by scoring or ranking advisors on how they act on prompts (Annex III point 4(b)), so keep adoption reporting separate from performance management.",{"slug":45,"title":46,"tier":32,"basis":47,"organizations":39},"estate-and-trust-document-drafting","AI review and extraction of existing estate and trust documents","AI review and extraction of a client's existing estate and trust documents is not itself listed in Annex III. Article 50 transparency governs the design instead, and its tier depends on how directly the client interacts with the system. The review and extraction step the evidence on this page documents is advisor facing: the assistant reads the client's existing documents for the advisor, and the client never interacts with it directly, which sits closer to minimal risk. When the guided intake conversation that captures facts talks to the client directly, Article 50(1) requires telling them they are dealing with AI, a limited risk duty. Where a platform's own template filling step also generates new text handed to a client, for example a draft document, Article 50(2) requires the provider to mark that output as AI generated when a model produced it; the evidence on this page does not establish that a model does the filling. Recorded as context-dependent because the actual tier follows each deployment's design, not a fixed property of the use case.",{"slug":49,"title":50,"tier":32,"basis":51,"organizations":52},"portfolio-reporting-and-commentary","AI generated client portfolio reports and commentary","Drafting client reports for human review is not listed in Annex III and is not a practice prohibited by Article 5, so the tier turns on the firm's role under Article 50. A firm that deploys a third party generator (for example a feature of its portfolio platform) for private client reports has no Article 50 duty: the Article 50(4) disclosure duty covers AI generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest, which private client reports are not, and it lapses anyway after human review under editorial responsibility. For that firm the tier is minimal. A firm that builds the generating system or places it on the market under its own name is a provider under Article 50(2) and must mark the synthetic text in a machine readable format; drafting whole commentaries goes beyond the exemption for an assistive function for standard editing, so for that firm the tier is limited.",3,{"slug":54,"title":55,"tier":32,"basis":56,"organizations":57},"goal-based-financial-planning-assistant","AI assistant for goal based financial planning","Planning support for advisors is not listed in Annex III. A client facing version must disclose that the client is talking to AI (Article 50). It becomes high risk if it is used to assess the creditworthiness of individuals (Annex III point 5(b)) or for risk assessment and pricing of life or health insurance for individuals (Annex III point 5(c)).",2,{"slug":59,"title":60,"tier":32,"basis":61,"organizations":57},"suitability-assessment-assistant","AI assistant for investment suitability assessment and reports","Investment suitability assessment is not listed in Annex III, so the tier depends on design. It becomes high risk where the same system assesses creditworthiness, for example for lending against a portfolio (Annex III point 5(b)). MiFID II suitability duties apply regardless of the AI Act tier.",{"slug":63,"title":64,"tier":21,"basis":65,"organizations":57},"enterprise-knowledge-search","AI enterprise knowledge search for employees","Article 50(1) requires that people who interact directly with an AI system are informed of it, unless this is obvious from the context, as it usually is for an internal assistant. The system would be high risk only if it were intended for an Annex III purpose, such as assessing the creditworthiness of natural persons (point 5(b)) or making decisions on or evaluating workers (point 4(b)).",{"slug":67,"title":68,"tier":32,"basis":69,"organizations":57},"account-servicing-execution","AI for back office account servicing execution","The tier depends on how the system is built. It stays minimal when the agent only executes changes approved by a person and any letter comes from a fixed template, since executing servicing changes is not listed in Annex III. It moves to limited risk when the same system talks to customers directly (the Article 50 transparency duty, described on the customer facing servicing page) or when generative AI drafts the confirmation or letter text: the provider of that generative function, the bank if it builds the system, then carries the Article 50(2) duty to mark the generated content in a machine readable way, unless the output only gets an assistive role or standard editing that does not substantially alter the input data. An AI system used to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons, for example to decide on a loan restructuring, is high risk under Annex III point 5(b); keep that assessment outside this agent, which only executes the decided change.",{"slug":71,"title":72,"tier":32,"basis":73,"organizations":57},"portfolio-drift-monitoring-and-rebalancing","AI portfolio drift monitoring and rebalancing proposals","Monitoring portfolios and proposing trades for human approval is not listed in Annex III and is not a prohibited practice under Article 5, so the tier turns on the firm's role under Article 50. A firm that builds or brands the rationale writer in house is a provider under Article 50(2) and must mark the generated text in a machine readable format: drafting a rationale for the drift and the proposed trades goes beyond the exemption for an assistive function for standard editing, so for that firm the tier is limited. Article 50(1) also applies once the rationale reaches the client, as this page's own implementation step allows. A firm that only deploys a third party feature for internal approver use has no Article 50 duty, and for that firm the tier is minimal. Investment conduct rules such as MiFID II suitability and best execution still apply to the resulting trades.",{"slug":75,"title":76,"tier":32,"basis":77,"organizations":78},"source-of-wealth-diligence","AI agent for source of wealth due diligence in private banking","Anti money laundering due diligence is not listed in Annex III, so an assistant that drafts source of wealth reports for a human decision is not high risk by default. It becomes high risk if it adds remote biometric identification of the client (Annex III point 1(a); verification that only confirms a claimed identity is excluded) or feeds an assessment of a natural person's creditworthiness, for example for lending to the client (Annex III point 5(b)). GDPR Article 22 on solely automated decisions applies if it ever refused a client on its own.",1,{"slug":80,"title":81,"tier":32,"basis":82,"organizations":78},"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":84,"title":85,"tier":27,"basis":86,"organizations":78},"shariah-compliance-screening","AI assistant for Shariah compliance screening and review","An internal assistant that screens contracts for compliance with Shariah standards is not listed in Annex III: it assesses contracts, structures and securities, not the creditworthiness of natural persons (Annex III point 5(b)). If a customer facing version answers product questions, it must disclose that people are interacting with an AI system under Article 50(1). National Islamic finance regulators set their own Shariah governance expectations.",{"slug":88,"title":89,"tier":27,"basis":90,"organizations":78},"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":92,"title":93,"tier":21,"basis":94,"organizations":78},"financial-services-digital-human-guide","AI digital human guide for banks and insurers","Article 50(1): people must be told they are interacting with an AI system unless that is obvious from the context. Camera based emotion recognition of customers, which some of the avatars described here do, is high risk under Annex III point 1(c) and needs the Article 50(3) notice, so leave it out of the design or put it through a separate assessment. An avatar that mimics a real employee or executive may also be deepfake content under Article 50(4), which requires disclosure that the content is artificially generated. General product and service answers are not an Annex III use; the tier would rise if the avatar assessed creditworthiness or priced life or health insurance.",{"slug":96,"title":97,"tier":21,"basis":98,"organizations":78},"outbound-notice-drafting","AI for drafting customer letters and outbound notices","Drafting letters for human approval is not listed in Annex III. The decision the letter communicates may come from a separate high risk system, such as credit scoring (Annex III point 5(b)) or a public body's eligibility decision on benefits (point 5(a)); the drafting tool does not make that decision. Article 50(2) requires the provider of an AI system that generates text to mark the output as artificially generated, which puts this on the limited risk (transparency) tier; this includes an organization that builds its own drafting tool. Article 50(2) does not apply where the AI has only an assistive function for standard editing and does not substantially alter the input data or the semantics of the output.",{"slug":100,"title":101,"tier":27,"basis":102,"organizations":78},"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":104,"title":105,"tier":27,"basis":106,"organizations":78},"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":108,"title":109,"tier":21,"basis":110,"organizations":111},"first-line-contact-centre-agent","AI agent for first line contact center service","An AI system that interacts directly with people must be designed so that they know they are dealing with AI, unless that is obvious from the context (Article 50(1)). It is not high risk under Annex III as long as it does not evaluate eligibility for essential public assistance benefits and services (point 5(a)), creditworthiness (point 5(b)), risk and pricing for life and health insurance (point 5(c)) or emergency calls (point 5(d)). This holds only if emotion or vulnerability signals are inferred from what the customer says (text or transcript content), not from voice or other biometric features; an agent that infers emotion from a caller's voice is an emotion recognition system (Article 3(39)), which is high risk under Annex III point 1(c) and triggers the deployer disclosure duty in Article 50(3).",0,{"slug":113,"title":114,"tier":32,"basis":115,"organizations":111},"digital-onboarding-assistant","AI assistant for digital account onboarding and KYC","The conversational assistant falls under the Article 50 transparency duty. Biometric verification whose sole purpose is to confirm that a person is who they claim to be is excluded from the Annex III biometric category. The system becomes high risk when the same onboarding process assesses creditworthiness or a credit score of a natural person, for example for a credit card or overdraft (Annex III point 5(b)).",{"slug":117,"title":118,"tier":21,"basis":119,"organizations":111},"marketing-content-compliance-copilot","AI copilot for marketing content with compliance pre review","An internal drafting and review aid that makes no decisions about people. Article 50 transparency duties apply to generated content: providers must mark synthetic content, and deployers must disclose deep fake images, audio or video. Personalized targeting of individuals is governed mainly by data protection and consumer law rather than the AI Act.",{"slug":121,"title":122,"tier":27,"basis":123,"organizations":111},"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":125,"title":126,"tier":32,"basis":127,"organizations":111},"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).",{"slug":129,"title":130,"tier":27,"basis":131,"organizations":111},"pep-and-adverse-media-screening","AI for PEP and adverse media screening","Adverse media and PEP screening for due diligence is not listed in Annex III. It processes personal data, including data about alleged offenses, so GDPR Article 10 and national AML law govern what may be collected and how long it is kept.",{"slug":133,"title":134,"tier":32,"basis":135,"organizations":111},"perpetual-kyc","AI for perpetual KYC and event driven customer due diligence","Keeping customer due diligence files current is not listed in Annex III, so a back office system that assembles reviews for an analyst to decide is usually minimal risk. The design decides the rest: a conversational agent that asks customers for missing information must tell them they are interacting with an AI system (Article 50(1)); biometric verification that only confirms a person is who they claim to be is excluded from Annex III point 1(a), while remote biometric identification is high risk; and Article 5(1)(d) prohibits assessing the risk that a person will commit a criminal offense based solely on profiling, so behavioral triggers should open a review for a human rather than score the customer. GDPR applies to the collection and retention of KYC data, including Article 22 if an automated refresh leads to a decision with legal or similarly significant effect, such as closing an account.",{"slug":137,"title":138,"tier":32,"basis":139,"organizations":111},"settlement-fail-prediction-and-exception-management","AI for settlement fail prediction and post trade exception management","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.",{"slug":141,"title":142,"tier":21,"basis":143,"organizations":111},"statement-and-tax-document-generation","AI for statement, tax certificate and confirmation letter generation","Generating statements and confirmations from system data is not listed in Annex III and takes no decision about credit, insurance or access to essential services. If a customer facing agent takes the requests, Article 50(1) requires telling people they are interacting with an AI system. Under Article 50(2), providers of systems that generate text must mark the output as AI generated, unless the system only performs an assistive function for standard editing, or does not substantially alter the input data provided by the deployer or the semantics thereof; the free text the model drafts here is checked against source, but marking still applies where those exemptions do not.",{"slug":145,"title":146,"tier":21,"basis":147,"organizations":111},"regulatory-horizon-scanning","AI regulatory horizon scanning and obligation mapping","An internal tool that monitors and classifies regulatory publications for staff makes no decisions about natural persons, so it is not listed in Annex III and is not a prohibited practice under Article 5. Staff know they are using an AI tool and its summaries are not published to the public, so the Article 50 duties to inform users and to disclose published generated text add little for the deploying organization. Article 50(2) still requires the provider of a system that generates text to mark its output, in a machine readable format, as AI generated: usually the vendor, but an organization that builds its own summarizer can itself be that provider, which is what puts this use case at the limited tier rather than minimal. Beyond this and AI literacy (Article 4), no specific obligations apply. General model risk and third party rules still apply.",{"slug":149,"title":150,"tier":32,"basis":151,"organizations":111},"dynamic-customer-risk-rating","Dynamic AML customer risk rating with machine learning","An AML customer risk rating is not listed in Annex III. Article 5(1)(d) prohibits AI risk assessments that predict whether a natural person will commit or will likely commit a criminal offense based solely on profiling of that person or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics; it exempts only AI that supports the human assessment of a person's involvement in a criminal activity, which is already based on objective and verifiable facts directly linked to a criminal activity. An AML customer risk rating built from due diligence attributes, transaction behavior and screening results is itself an automated evaluation of a person's situation and behavior, which is profiling under GDPR Article 4(4), and due diligence facts such as occupation, geography and products are not facts directly linked to a criminal activity, so the rating does not sit squarely inside the exemption. What keeps it a defensible AML due diligence tool rather than an offense prediction is that it does not itself accuse a person of an offense: it sets a level of scrutiny, a human analyst reviews material moves, and regulatory minimum rules sit above the model as hard constraints. A rating driven mainly by nationality or other personal attributes weakens that position further, which is why the proxy discrimination guardrail matters. If the same score is used to evaluate the creditworthiness of natural persons or to establish their credit score, that use falls under Annex III point 5(b) and is high risk, so keep the AML rating and credit decisions separate.","2026-10-14",1792420066569]