Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is work examples, agreed goals and review notes; the intended result is a performance review draft. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Line manager wants to draft a performance review. The request needs an accountable owner for a performance review draft, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- Work examples, agreed goals and review notes. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 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 performance review draft. Record the audience and the next system in the chain, rather than describing the output only as a draft.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Generated language can amplify bias or introduce claims unsupported by observed work. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- line manager and people partner 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 performance review draft remains within the stated purpose, and line manager and people partner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, generated language can amplify bias or introduce claims unsupported by observed work, or a performance review draft reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
A stop or redesign route becomes relevant if restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before line manager and people partner can intervene, or use documented examples and make the responsible manager own every judgement cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Has the company approved this account configuration for draft a performance review, rather than only approving the product?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of work examples, agreed goals and review notes be removed?
- 03
Will a performance review draft remain working material, reach another person or make another system act?
- 04
Who replaces line manager and people partner when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 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
- line manager
- task
- Use AI to draft a performance review.
- information
- work examples, agreed goals and review notes
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- Employee evaluation
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- line manager and people partner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use documented examples and make the responsible manager own every judgement
- ✓
Document why each part of work examples, agreed goals and review notes is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Keep the use within draft or analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to draft a performance review automatically allowed?
Treat this as a request pattern. The authoritative answer comes from the current company policy and the employee’s completed submission.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a performance review draft, identify work examples, agreed goals and review notes, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how line manager and people partner will review it.
What belongs in the completed policy record?
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying work examples, agreed goals and review notes would create unnecessary risk.