Vertical Standardisation for High-Risk AI Systems under the EU AI Act: A Domain-Specific Framework for Algorithmic Hiring
Summary
This paper proposes a vertical, domain-specific framework for standardizing high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act, focusing on algorithmic hiring and ranking-based recruitment systems, with concrete recommendations for risk management, data governance, explainability, human oversight, and post-deployment monitoring.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/15/26, 04:20 AM
# Vertical Standardisation for High-Risk AI Systems under the EU AI Act: A Domain-Specific Framework for Algorithmic Hiring Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12588](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12588) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.12588) > Abstract:According to the recent European legislation, high\-risk AI systems will have to adapt in order to comply with requirements related to specific areas, like risk management, data quality and governance, logging and traceability, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, and accuracy, as outlined in the European Artificial Intelligence \(AI\) Act\. As the standardisation process for AI is expected to remain iterative and, so far, there are no European standards on AI fully covering the challenges of algorithmic hiring, we propose specific standardisation\-oriented recommendations related to the relevant AI areas specified by the European Commission\. For each of these areas, we set the context by describing the requirements that AI systems in high\-risk domains, and especially in recruitment, should fulfil, as well as the activities that should be carried out to ensure their appropriate use and desired performance, in line with the requirements deriving from the AI Act\. Unlike existing horizontal approaches to AI governance and standardisation, this paper contributes a vertical, domain\-specific framework for algorithmic hiring, and especially ranking\-based recruitment systems, by mapping the requirements of the AI Act to concrete standardisation recommendations, focusing on lifecycle discrimination risks, fairness\-aware data governance, explainability, human oversight, and post\-deployment monitoring in recruitment systems\. Even though our recommendations were informed by the outcomes of the European project FINDHR, they are not tied to the project's technical artefacts and could be implemented using alternative methods, tools, or governance mechanisms\. ## Submission history From: Anna Gatzioura \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/e10fc48d/2607.12588)\] **\[v1\]**Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:00:27 UTC \(834 KB\)
Similar Articles
From Legal Text to AI-specific Risk Sources: A Systematic Analysis of the EU AI Act's High-Risk Requirements
This paper presents a systematic analysis of the EU AI Act's high-risk requirements, deriving a list of AI-specific risk sources to bridge legal obligations with AI risk management practices.
Global AI Regulations for FAIR and Ethics in High-Risk Use Cases: A Comparative Review
This paper provides a comparative review of AI regulations across the EU, US, and China for high-risk use cases, analyzing FAIR principles and identifying governance gaps. It proposes Knowledge Blocks, a machine-checkable compliance artifact pattern to address implementation challenges.
Harmonizing AI Safety Thresholds
This paper proposes a methodology for deriving harmonized AI safety thresholds across frontier AI companies to address inconsistencies in existing thresholds, covering misuse risks and automated AI R&D, and highlighting empirical gaps.
Frontier AI regulation: Managing emerging risks to public safety
OpenAI proposes a regulatory framework for 'frontier AI' models that pose potential public safety risks, advocating for standard-setting processes, registration/reporting requirements, and compliance mechanisms including pre-deployment risk assessments and post-deployment monitoring.
The voluntary-to-mandatory pipeline for AI safety frameworks — with sources
The article outlines a documented pattern where voluntary AI safety frameworks become mandatory through corporate coalitions and enterprise adoption, highlighting decentralization as a key countermeasure to centralization risks.