High-risk AI needs real human oversight

High-risk AI under the EU AI Act can't be set up and left alone. Article 14 requires real human oversight for the whole time the system is in use. Today's angle is for a financial institution running credit scoring or another high-risk tool listed in Annex III, the Act's list of high-risk use cases.

The provider has to design the system so people can actually oversee it, either through controls built into the system or through measures the bank puts in place itself. The people doing that oversight need to understand what the system can't do and notice when something looks off. They also need to watch for automation bias, which is the habit of trusting the model's recommendation too readily, and to read its output correctly. Finally, they must be able to ignore, override, or reverse a decision, and to stop the system safely.

In practice, give this job to named, trained people who have real authority and the time and resources to use it. Article 26, which sets out the bank's own duties as the user of the system, backs this up. Then test that override and stop actually work inside a live credit workflow, because a review where someone just approves whatever the model says doesn't count as oversight.