Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, near-miss reports, locations and task context is the input boundary and recurring causes and prevention priorities is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- Safety analyst wants to analyse workplace near-miss reports. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw recurring causes and prevention priorities.
- 2Information involved
- Near-miss reports, locations and task context. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 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 recurring causes and prevention priorities. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Reports may identify workers and low reporting can distort comparisons between teams. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 6Human review
- safety programme 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 least restrictive path starts only after the exact account is approved, only the minimum employee and safety incident information is used, recurring causes and prevention priorities remains within the stated purpose, and safety programme owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Specialist approval becomes relevant if the account or data handling is uncertain, reports may identify workers and low reporting can distort comparisons between teams, or recurring causes and prevention priorities reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
Do not continue unchanged when restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before safety programme owner can intervene, or protect reporters and validate themes without using volume as a performance score cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Does the selected account retain or reuse anything supplied while trying to analyse workplace near-miss reports?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of near-miss reports, locations and task context than the result actually requires?
- 03
Could someone treat recurring causes and prevention priorities as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Who replaces safety programme owner when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 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
- safety analyst
- task
- Use AI to analyse workplace near-miss reports.
- information
- near-miss reports, locations and task context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Safety programme planning
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- safety programme owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Protect reporters and validate themes without using volume as a performance score
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for recurring causes and prevention priorities.
- ✓
Write the boundary around recurring causes and prevention priorities clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted recurring causes and prevention priorities, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to analyse workplace near-miss reports automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary analyse workplace near-miss reports request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe recurring causes and prevention priorities, identify near-miss reports, locations and task context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how safety programme owner will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Preserve who accepted recurring causes and prevention priorities, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying near-miss reports, locations and task context would create unnecessary risk.