Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is controlled interview notes and case context; the intended result is a factual interview summary. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Investigator wants to summarise investigation interview notes. Responsibility for a factual interview summary stays with a named person or team throughout the request.
- 2Information involved
- Controlled interview notes and case context. Look beyond pasted text: files, integrations and retrieval connections can expose the same material.
- 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 a factual interview summary. Follow the result to its real endpoint so the request captures its practical effect.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The summary may collapse uncertainty or characterise an allegation as established fact. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- lead investigator 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 highly sensitive investigation information is used, a factual interview summary remains within the stated purpose, and lead investigator reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, the summary may collapse uncertainty or characterise an allegation as established fact, or a factual interview summary reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The proposed use should pause if restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before lead investigator can intervene, or separate statements, evidence and investigator conclusions 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 summarise investigation interview notes, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in controlled interview notes and case context, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Could someone treat a factual interview summary as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Can lead investigator inspect the complete result and its source before reliance?
- 05
Does the intended use extend beyond the region and audience covered by the current policy?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- investigator
- task
- Use AI to summarise investigation interview notes.
- information
- controlled interview notes and case context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Investigation evidence
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- lead investigator
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Separate statements, evidence and investigator conclusions
- ✓
Start with a de-identified sample of controlled interview notes and case context before considering broader access.
- ✓
Write the boundary around a factual interview summary clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted a factual interview summary, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to summarise investigation interview notes automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to controlled interview notes and case context, the exact account, a factual interview summary, its audience and the proposed review.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe a factual interview summary, identify controlled interview notes and case context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how lead investigator will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Preserve who accepted a factual interview summary, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying controlled interview notes and case context would create unnecessary risk.