Assess whether your planned or existing high-risk AI deployment requires a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA), work through affected persons, potential harms, human oversight and safeguards, and document the decision, approval, evidence and reassessment path.
The Practice Kit is designed for organisations that need to determine whether a concrete high-risk AI deployment falls within the FRIA requirements of Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (EU AI Act) and, where applicable, perform and document the assessment before deployment.
Whether the deployment enters the Article 27 FRIA route and, where it does, the concrete process/use, duration and frequency, affected persons or groups, potential harms, provider information, human oversight, safeguards, information/complaint/redress measures and approval/evidence status.
For planned or existing high-risk AI deployments, process data, provider documents, fundamental-rights risks, safeguards, specialist reviews and approvals are often held separately. Connect them to assess FRIA applicability and identify open points before the deployment decision.
Connect applicability and context, affected groups, harm scenarios, human oversight, evidence, specialist reviews, the human deployment decision, monitoring and reassessment in one traceable case.
Use a dedicated applicability/specialist-routing check so that unresolved high-risk or Article 27 questions are visible rather than hidden inside the assessment.
Map the actual deployment process, decision points, affected persons and operational context instead of assessing the AI system only in the abstract.
Use the Provider Evidence Request / Gap List to connect Article 13/provider information and other technical facts to the deployer's assessment.
Use a structured workshop to identify affected natural persons or groups of persons, plausible harm pathways and evidence gaps without pretending to automate fundamental-rights judgement.
Translate oversight and safeguards into responsibilities, intervention points, competence, escalation and evidence.
Connect the FRIA Working Assessment to specialist cross-review, deployment decision, evidence index, monitoring and the FRIA-CURRENT revalidation check.
FRIA applicability, affected groups, harm scenarios, human oversight, safeguards, evidence, specialist reviews, approval and reassessment form a prepared workflow for your deployment case.
Prepared processes, work tools and evidence structures help reduce internal research and setup effort.
Use your team's existing expertise within a structured working process.
Individual legal, privacy, technical and specialist questions remain with the responsible functions. External support can focus on questions that require an individual review or decision.
The overview covers the AI Act and FRIA topics addressed by this Practice Kit and connects them to tasks, work tools and evidence. It is not a complete AI Act requirements list or a confirmation of conformity or completeness.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (EU AI Act), particularly Articles 26 and 27. The included requirements mapping and specialist guidance support the working assessment. Verify the current legal position and applicable guidance before an actual deployment approval.
Document the working classification inputs and route unresolved high-risk or applicability questions to specialist review.
Work tools: FRIA Navigator; FRIA Working Assessment; Evidence & Approval Index
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Record how the deployer intends to use the system and identify gaps between the intended deployment and the information/instructions available from the provider.
Work tools: Provider Evidence Request / Gap List
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Connect operational controls, monitoring, suspension/escalation and log/evidence availability to the deployment case.
Work tools: FRIA Navigator; FRIA Working Assessment; Evidence & Approval Index
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Identify affected persons/groups in the concrete process, including indirect effects where they are relevant to the assessment.
Work tools: Affected Persons / Harm Scenario Workshop; FRIA Working Assessment
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Translate the real process and decision/use context into plausible fundamental-rights harm scenarios and evidence needs.
Work tools: FRIA Navigator; FRIA Working Assessment; Evidence & Approval Index
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Define responsibilities, intervention/escalation points, operational safeguards and evidence instead of relying on a generic statement that “a human is involved”.
Work tools: Human Oversight / Deployment Control Plan
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Plan the operational information and complaint/redress interfaces and connect them to the approval decision and evidence package.
Work tools: Information / Complaint / Redress Plan
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Use monitoring and revalidation triggers, preserve the evidence needed for any required external interface, and verify the current official template/authority route before live use.
Work tools: FRIA Navigator; FRIA Working Assessment; Evidence & Approval Index
Outcome / evidence: A documented case status with responsibilities, open questions and evidence references.
Coordinated work tools for structured independent implementation.
A browser-based guidance path for applicability, assessment, specialist routing, decision and reassessment.
An editable Excel checklist for status, actions, responsibilities, evidence and closure.
A central Excel working view for the deployment case, assessment status, actions, evidence and approvals.
Applicability / Specialist Routing Check; Process-to-Decision Canvas; Provider Evidence Request / Gap List; Affected Persons / Harm Scenario Workshop; Human Oversight / Deployment Control Plan; FRIA Working Assessment; Cross-Review / Specialist Brief; Information / Complaint / Redress Plan; Deployment Decision Brief; Monitoring / Reassessment Protocol; FRIA-CURRENT Revalidation Check; FRIA Implementation Checklist; Evidence & Approval Index
A populated deployment case with corresponding worked materials for orientation across the end-to-end FRIA workflow.
Process / Affected Persons / FRIA Assistant; Deployment Control Assistant; Complaint / Review / Reassessment Assistant
Supporting documentation for applying the working system and keeping time-dependent legal/source questions visible.
The previews show key components of the supplied work tools.
Assess FRIA relevance for a high-risk AI deployment, review fundamental-rights impacts and document safeguards, approvals and evidence.
Open START HERE, create a working copy and follow the next steps for your own case.
1. Create a deployment case in the FRIA Deployment Cockpit and assign a unique identifier.
2. Record the intended process/use, AI system, provider, deployment owner and current high-risk/FRIA assumptions.
3. Complete the Applicability / Specialist Routing Check before treating FRIA applicability as closed.
4. Map the process-to-decision flow and identify affected natural persons or groups of persons.
5. Open provider-evidence gaps and the first harm/safeguard work items with clear owners.
6. Do not approve deployment from the template alone: complete required specialist review, decision and evidence steps and define the first reassessment trigger.
The licence terms supplied with the product govern internal organisational use, editing and permitted use of completed outputs. The original template library and source files may not be redistributed outside the licensed scope.
Support covers download/file access, package structure and technical product issues. It does not include individual legal, fundamental-rights, privacy, security or deployment approval unless separately agreed.
FRIA templates, official forms, authority routes and guidance can change. Revalidate the current official position before a live deployment, notification or material reassessment. Product updates are included only where explicitly stated in the product or checkout.
Key questions about use, scope and boundaries before purchase.
No. Article 27 applies to specified deployers and cases. The Practice Kit starts with an applicability/specialist-routing check precisely because high-risk status alone should not be treated as an automatic FRIA conclusion.
No. It structures the facts, working assessment and escalation. Binding legal classification remains outside the product.
No. They are distinct assessments with different legal bases and purposes, although a concrete deployment may require coordinated work and reuse of relevant factual evidence. Do not treat one as an automatic substitute for the other.
Use the Provider Evidence Request / Gap List to record the missing information, owner, request and effect on the assessment. Do not close the FRIA on unsupported assumptions.
Yes. The Human Oversight / Deployment Control Plan translates oversight into concrete responsibilities, competence, intervention points, escalation and evidence for the actual deployment.
Yes. The Affected Persons / Harm Scenario Workshop and FRIA Working Assessment connect affected natural persons or groups of persons to deployment-specific potential harms, safeguards and evidence gaps.
Yes. The Information / Complaint / Redress Plan supports implementation of the relevant operational interfaces and their connection to the deployment decision and evidence.
No. It can help prepare and evidence the required working status. Any current official template, competent authority and submission/notification route must be verified for the concrete case before use.
No. They support structured work and drafting. Specialist review, fundamental-rights judgement and the deployment decision remain human responsibilities.
Use the Monitoring / Reassessment Protocol and FRIA-CURRENT Revalidation Check when the process, system, provider information, affected groups, risks, safeguards, legal position or deployment conditions change materially.
Use the Practice Kit to connect applicability, deployment context, affected persons, harm scenarios, provider evidence, human oversight, safeguards, approval and reassessment without building the process and working materials from scratch.
