Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Here the tool receives supplier proposals, criteria and due-diligence notes, while someone ultimately relies on a supplier comparison. The policy must evaluate the whole path between them.
- 1Task and owner
- Procurement manager wants to compare suppliers for a purchase. Name who owns the finished a supplier comparison; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Supplier proposals, criteria and due-diligence notes. Include attachments and connected sources when deciding the highest information classification.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Approval must cover the account and its settings, not merely the product name.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a supplier comparison. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Hidden weighting or incomplete evidence can distort the award. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- procurement owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Review is meaningful only when that person has enough context and authority to change the result.
Possible policy routes
The task name alone cannot decide it.
A published workplace policy can return different answers for the same task. These are the practical branches worth encoding.
A routine policy route may be possible
The lower-friction route begins when the exact account is approved, only the minimum confidential supplier information is used, a supplier comparison remains within the stated purpose, and procurement owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, hidden weighting or incomplete evidence can distort the award, or a supplier comparison reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The proposed use should pause if restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before procurement owner can intervene, or publish criteria before scoring and let the accountable panel review source evidence cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Is the exact account approved for compare suppliers for a purchase, including its plug-ins and connected sources?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in supplier proposals, criteria and due-diligence notes, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Will a supplier comparison remain working material, reach another person or make another system act?
- 04
Can procurement owner inspect the complete result and its source before reliance?
- 05
Is this genuinely one request, or will repeated use turn it into an embedded process?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- procurement manager
- task
- Use AI to compare suppliers for a purchase.
- information
- supplier proposals, criteria and due-diligence notes
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Supplier selection
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- procurement owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Publish criteria before scoring and let the accountable panel review source evidence
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for a supplier comparison.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted a supplier comparison, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to compare suppliers for a purchase automatically allowed?
Treat this as a request pattern. The authoritative answer comes from the current company policy and the employee’s completed submission.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a supplier comparison, identify supplier proposals, criteria and due-diligence notes, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how procurement owner will review it.
How much of the request should the company retain?
Preserve who accepted a supplier comparison, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying supplier proposals, criteria and due-diligence notes would create unnecessary risk.