Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision; the intended result is a formal employee letter. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- People partner wants to draft a disciplinary letter. The request needs an accountable owner for a formal employee letter, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- Verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision. Include attachments and connected sources when deciding the highest information classification.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Treat a new plug-in or connector as a change to the approved setup.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a formal employee letter. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The letter affects employment rights and cannot substitute for the underlying process. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- authorised people or legal owner 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 company can consider a standard route where the exact account is approved, only the minimum employee personal information is used, a formal employee letter remains within the stated purpose, and authorised people or legal owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, the letter affects employment rights and cannot substitute for the underlying process, or a formal employee letter 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 authorised people or legal owner can intervene, or generate only after the decision is made and verify facts, process and appeal information 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 draft a disciplinary letter?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Who receives a formal employee letter, and what will they do with it?
- 04
Will authorised people or legal owner review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 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
- people partner
- task
- Use AI to draft a disciplinary letter.
- information
- verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- Employment decision
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- authorised people or legal owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Generate only after the decision is made and verify facts, process and appeal information
- ✓
Document why each part of verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Write the boundary around a formal employee letter clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision into the audit trail.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to draft a disciplinary letter automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary draft a disciplinary letter 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 a formal employee letter, identify verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how authorised people or legal owner will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision into the audit trail. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying verified events, policy provisions and the approved decision would create unnecessary risk.