Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, authentication, access and usage patterns is the input boundary and an anomaly score or investigation lead is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- Security analytics lead wants to detect unusual user behaviour. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw an anomaly score or investigation lead.
- 2Information involved
- Authentication, access and usage patterns. Check uploads, history and connected systems before describing the request as low sensitivity.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Confirm the approved account, retention setting and any connected service before the request begins.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is an anomaly score or investigation lead. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Normal behaviour differs by person and an anomaly can lead to an unfair allegation. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- security investigation owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. A final glance after an automatic action would not give that owner meaningful control.
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 employee activity data is used, an anomaly score or investigation lead remains within the stated purpose, and security investigation owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Send the request for approval if the account or data handling is uncertain, normal behaviour differs by person and an anomaly can lead to an unfair allegation, or an anomaly score or investigation lead 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 security investigation owner can intervene, or treat the score as a lead and require corroborating evidence before action cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Which approved account will perform detect unusual user behaviour, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of authentication, access and usage patterns than the result actually requires?
- 03
Could someone treat an anomaly score or investigation lead as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Can security investigation 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
- security analytics lead
- task
- Use AI to detect unusual user behaviour.
- information
- authentication, access and usage patterns
- 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
- security investigation owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Treat the score as a lead and require corroborating evidence before action
- ✓
Document why each part of authentication, access and usage patterns is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, security investigation owner’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to detect unusual user behaviour automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of an anomaly score or investigation lead can produce another route.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe an anomaly score or investigation lead, identify authentication, access and usage patterns, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how security investigation owner will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Keep the submitted facts, security investigation owner’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying authentication, access and usage patterns would create unnecessary risk.