Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures; the intended result is a fictional exercise for workers. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Safety trainer wants to create a safety training scenario. Name who owns the finished a fictional exercise for workers; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures. Look beyond pasted text: files, integrations and retrieval connections can expose the same material.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. The request should identify the exact account because product-level approval leaves important controls unknown.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a fictional exercise for workers. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- A simplified scenario can teach the wrong control or expose a real incident. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 6Human review
- qualified safety owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. The reviewer needs the source material and must be able to reject the output before it takes effect.
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 internal information is used, a fictional exercise for workers remains within the stated purpose, and qualified safety owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Specialist approval becomes relevant if the account or data handling is uncertain, a simplified scenario can teach the wrong control or expose a real incident, or a fictional exercise for workers reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The policy may require another method where restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before qualified safety owner can intervene, or validate controls and fictionalise identifying incident details 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 create a safety training scenario, including its plug-ins and connected sources?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures be removed?
- 03
Does a fictional exercise for workers create an external statement, a decision or an automated action?
- 04
Does qualified safety owner have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 05
Does the intended use extend beyond the region and audience covered by the current policy?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- safety trainer
- task
- Use AI to create a safety training scenario.
- information
- real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- Safety training
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- qualified safety owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Validate controls and fictionalise identifying incident details
- ✓
Document why each part of real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Keep the use within draft or analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, qualified safety owner’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to create a safety training scenario automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a fictional exercise for workers can produce another route.
Which facts should be submitted before work begins?
Describe a fictional exercise for workers, identify real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how qualified safety owner will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Keep the submitted facts, qualified safety owner’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying real hazards, learning objectives and approved procedures would create unnecessary risk.