Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within legal and compliance, this request uses two identified contract versions and negotiation context to produce a change summary. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- Contract manager wants to compare two contract versions. Name who owns the finished a change summary; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Two identified contract versions and negotiation context. 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 change summary. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Formatting or moved text can be misread and a material change can be missed. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 6Human review
- contract 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 company can consider a standard route where the exact account is approved, only the minimum confidential legal information is used, a change summary remains within the stated purpose, and contract owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, formatting or moved text can be misread and a material change can be missed, or a change summary 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 contract owner can intervene, or run a reliable document comparison and verify material changes in source text 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 compare two contract versions?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose two identified contract versions and negotiation context to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
Could someone treat a change summary as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Does contract owner have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 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
- contract manager
- task
- Use AI to compare two contract versions.
- information
- two identified contract versions and negotiation context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Internal work
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- contract owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Run a reliable document comparison and verify material changes in source text
- ✓
Start with a de-identified sample of two identified contract versions and negotiation context before considering broader access.
- ✓
Keep the use within analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, contract owner’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to compare two contract versions automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to two identified contract versions and negotiation context, the exact account, a change summary, its audience and the proposed review.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe a change summary, identify two identified contract versions and negotiation context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how contract owner will review it.
What should remain after the decision?
Keep the submitted facts, contract owner’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying two identified contract versions and negotiation context would create unnecessary risk.