Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within it and security, this request uses authentication logs, user identifiers and device context to produce patterns of unusual access. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- Identity security analyst wants to analyse access logs. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw patterns of unusual access.
- 2Information involved
- Authentication logs, user identifiers and device context. Check uploads, history and connected systems before describing the request as low sensitivity.
- 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 patterns of unusual access. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The analysis profiles employees and may mistake legitimate travel or work patterns for misuse. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- identity security 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 employee and security telemetry is used, patterns of unusual access remains within the stated purpose, and identity security owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, the analysis profiles employees and may mistake legitimate travel or work patterns for misuse, or patterns of unusual access 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 identity security owner can intervene, or limit the purpose, validate alerts and restrict employment use of the analysis 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 analyse access logs, including its plug-ins and connected sources?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of authentication logs, user identifiers and device context be removed?
- 03
Could someone treat patterns of unusual access as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Will identity security owner review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 05
Would another region, audience or frequency activate a different company rule?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- identity security analyst
- task
- Use AI to analyse access logs.
- information
- authentication logs, user identifiers and device context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Security investigation
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- identity security owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Limit the purpose, validate alerts and restrict employment use of the analysis
- ✓
Reduce authentication logs, user identifiers and device context to the smallest useful extract and remove fields unrelated to patterns of unusual access.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted patterns of unusual access, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to analyse access logs automatically allowed?
Treat this as a request pattern. The authoritative answer comes from the current company policy and the employee’s completed submission.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe patterns of unusual access, identify authentication logs, user identifiers and device context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how identity security owner will review it.
What should remain after the decision?
Preserve who accepted patterns of unusual access, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying authentication logs, user identifiers and device context would create unnecessary risk.