Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is a confidential report and routing rules; the intended result is a suggested category, urgency and case owner. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Speak-up programme owner wants to triage a whistleblowing report. Name who owns the finished a suggested category, urgency and case owner; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- A confidential report and routing rules. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 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 suggested category, urgency and case owner. Record the audience and the next system in the chain, rather than describing the output only as a draft.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The report can contain allegations, identities and retaliation risk. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- authorised investigations owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. The reviewer needs the source material and must be able to reject the output before it takes effect.
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
A routine route is easier to justify when the exact account is approved, only the minimum highly sensitive personal information is used, a suggested category, urgency and case owner remains within the stated purpose, and authorised investigations owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, the report can contain allegations, identities and retaliation risk, or a suggested category, urgency and case owner 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 authorised investigations owner can intervene, or restrict access, preserve the original report and require human conflict checks 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 triage a whistleblowing report?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of a confidential report and routing rules be removed?
- 03
At what point does a suggested category, urgency and case owner move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Will authorised investigations owner review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 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
- speak-up programme owner
- task
- Use AI to triage a whistleblowing report.
- information
- a confidential report and routing rules
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Investigation routing
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- authorised investigations owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Restrict access, preserve the original report and require human conflict checks
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for a suggested category, urgency and case owner.
- ✓
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 triage a whistleblowing report automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary triage a whistleblowing report request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe a suggested category, urgency and case owner, identify a confidential report and routing rules, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how authorised investigations owner will review it.
What should remain after the decision?
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying a confidential report and routing rules would create unnecessary risk.