Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Here the tool receives approved support resources and communication context, while someone ultimately relies on a wellbeing support message. The policy must evaluate the whole path between them.
- 1Task and owner
- People wellbeing lead wants to draft an employee assistance message. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw a wellbeing support message.
- 2Information involved
- Approved support resources and communication context. Include attachments and connected sources when deciding the highest information classification.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. A personal login can handle information differently from the company-managed version of the same tool.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a wellbeing support message. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The message can imply a diagnosis or expose who sought support. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- wellbeing programme owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Make the review happen before reliance and give the reviewer a real way to stop the work.
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 request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum potentially sensitive employee information is used, a wellbeing support message remains within the stated purpose, and wellbeing programme owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, the message can imply a diagnosis or expose who sought support, or a wellbeing support message reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
A stop or redesign route becomes relevant if restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before wellbeing programme owner can intervene, or use neutral language and keep individual use of support confidential 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 draft an employee assistance message, including its plug-ins and connected sources?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose approved support resources and communication context to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
Does a wellbeing support message create an external statement, a decision or an automated action?
- 04
Does wellbeing programme 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
- people wellbeing lead
- task
- Use AI to draft an employee assistance message.
- information
- approved support resources and communication context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- Employee communication
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- wellbeing programme owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use neutral language and keep individual use of support confidential
- ✓
Keep whole files, mailboxes and datasets out of the prompt when a short part of approved support resources and communication context is enough.
- ✓
Keep the use within draft or analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted a wellbeing support message, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to draft an employee assistance message automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary draft an employee assistance message request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
Which facts should be submitted before work begins?
Describe a wellbeing support message, identify approved support resources and communication context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how wellbeing programme owner will review it.
What should remain after the decision?
Preserve who accepted a wellbeing support message, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying approved support resources and communication context would create unnecessary risk.