Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within learning and training, this request uses an employee response and approved scoring guide to produce a score or feedback draft. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- Training programme owner wants to evaluate an employee training answer. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw a score or feedback draft.
- 2Information involved
- An employee response and approved scoring guide. Include attachments and connected sources when deciding the highest information classification.
- 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 score or feedback draft. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Automated scoring can misread language or affect certification unfairly. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- qualified assessor 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 learning information is used, a score or feedback draft remains within the stated purpose, and qualified assessor reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, automated scoring can misread language or affect certification unfairly, or a score or feedback draft 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 qualified assessor can intervene, or use a transparent rubric and provide human review and correction 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 evaluate an employee training answer, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of an employee response and approved scoring guide than the result actually requires?
- 03
Does a score or feedback draft create an external statement, a decision or an automated action?
- 04
What evidence will qualified assessor use to accept, correct or reject the result?
- 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
- training programme owner
- task
- Use AI to evaluate an employee training answer.
- information
- an employee response and approved scoring guide
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Employee assessment
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- qualified assessor
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use a transparent rubric and provide human review and correction
- ✓
Document why each part of an employee response and approved scoring guide is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Reassess the request whenever its tool, information classification, frequency or consequence changes.
- ✓
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to evaluate an employee training answer automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a score or feedback draft can produce another route.
What belongs in the employee’s request?
Describe a score or feedback draft, identify an employee response and approved scoring guide, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how qualified assessor will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying an employee response and approved scoring guide would create unnecessary risk.