Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The request sits in learning and training and connects approved course content and accessibility needs with accessible format and language alternatives. That context distinguishes it from a generic permission to use AI.
- 1Task and owner
- Learning accessibility specialist wants to adapt training material for accessibility. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw accessible format and language alternatives.
- 2Information involved
- Approved course content and accessibility needs. Account for every route by which the tool receives the material, including plug-ins and linked storage.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Treat a new plug-in or connector as a change to the approved setup.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is accessible format and language alternatives. Record the audience and the next system in the chain, rather than describing the output only as a draft.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Automatic adaptation may remove meaning or fail for the learner’s actual assistive technology. The policy route should reflect this possible harm instead of relying on how ordinary the task sounds.
- 6Human review
- accessibility and subject-matter owners should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Their role should include checking source facts, correcting errors and refusing the proposed use.
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 training content and accessibility needs is used, accessible format and language alternatives remains within the stated purpose, and accessibility and subject-matter owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, automatic adaptation may remove meaning or fail for the learner’s actual assistive technology, or accessible format and language alternatives reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The company may need a safer design when restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before accessibility and subject-matter owners can intervene, or test with relevant assistive technology and preserve learning objectives cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Has the company approved this account configuration for adapt training material for accessibility, rather than only approving the product?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of approved course content and accessibility needs than the result actually requires?
- 03
Who receives accessible format and language alternatives, and what will they do with it?
- 04
Can accessibility and subject-matter owners 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
- learning accessibility specialist
- task
- Use AI to adapt training material for accessibility.
- information
- approved course content and accessibility needs
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- Employee training
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- accessibility and subject-matter owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Test with relevant assistive technology and preserve learning objectives
- ✓
Document why each part of approved course content and accessibility needs is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Reassess the request whenever its tool, information classification, frequency or consequence changes.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted accessible format and language alternatives, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to adapt training material for accessibility automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary adapt training material for accessibility request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
What belongs in the employee’s request?
Describe accessible format and language alternatives, identify approved course content and accessibility needs, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how accessibility and subject-matter owners will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Preserve who accepted accessible format and language alternatives, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying approved course content and accessibility needs would create unnecessary risk.