Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Here the tool receives privileged case material, evidence and procedural context, while someone ultimately relies on possible arguments and case strategy. The policy must evaluate the whole path between them.
- 1Task and owner
- Litigation team wants to analyse litigation strategy. Responsibility for possible arguments and case strategy stays with a named person or team throughout the request.
- 2Information involved
- Privileged case material, evidence and procedural context. Account for every route by which the tool receives the material, including plug-ins and linked storage.
- 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 possible arguments and case strategy. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Uploading material may waive protection or expose highly sensitive strategy. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- lead litigation lawyer 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 request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum privileged and highly confidential information is used, possible arguments and case strategy remains within the stated purpose, and lead litigation lawyer reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, uploading material may waive protection or expose highly sensitive strategy, or possible arguments and case strategy 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 lead litigation lawyer can intervene, or use only an approved privileged environment and control access and retention cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Does the selected account retain or reuse anything supplied while trying to analyse litigation strategy?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of privileged case material, evidence and procedural context be removed?
- 03
Does possible arguments and case strategy create an external statement, a decision or an automated action?
- 04
Does lead litigation lawyer have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 05
Which change in tool, data, purpose or impact would require a fresh request?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- litigation team
- task
- Use AI to analyse litigation strategy.
- information
- privileged case material, evidence and procedural context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Litigation strategy
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- lead litigation lawyer
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use only an approved privileged environment and control access and retention
- ✓
Document why each part of privileged case material, evidence and procedural context is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Write the boundary around possible arguments and case strategy clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, lead litigation lawyer’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to analyse litigation strategy automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary analyse litigation strategy request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe possible arguments and case strategy, identify privileged case material, evidence and procedural context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how lead litigation lawyer will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Keep the submitted facts, lead litigation lawyer’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying privileged case material, evidence and procedural context would create unnecessary risk.