Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is candidate assessments and selection criteria; the intended result is an ordered candidate list. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Hiring team wants to rank job candidates. Name who owns the finished an ordered candidate list; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Candidate assessments and selection criteria. Look beyond pasted text: files, integrations and retrieval connections can expose the same material.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. A personal login can handle information differently from the company-managed version of the same tool.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is an ordered candidate list. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Ranking can determine opportunity and conceal biased or invalid criteria. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- people and hiring owners 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 request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum candidate personal information is used, an ordered candidate list remains within the stated purpose, and people and hiring owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, ranking can determine opportunity and conceal biased or invalid criteria, or an ordered candidate list 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 people and hiring owners can intervene, or do not treat the ranking as final and document the human decision against job-related evidence cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Will rank job candidates run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of candidate assessments and selection criteria than the result actually requires?
- 03
Will an ordered candidate list remain working material, reach another person or make another system act?
- 04
Will people and hiring owners review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 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
- hiring team
- task
- Use AI to rank job candidates.
- information
- candidate assessments and selection criteria
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Employment decision
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- people and hiring owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Do not treat the ranking as final and document the human decision against job-related evidence
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for an ordered candidate list.
- ✓
Set an expiry or review point when recurring work turns into a permanent process.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, people and hiring owners’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to rank job candidates automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to candidate assessments and selection criteria, the exact account, an ordered candidate list, its audience and the proposed review.
Which facts should be submitted before work begins?
Describe an ordered candidate list, identify candidate assessments and selection criteria, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how people and hiring owners will review it.
What belongs in the completed policy record?
Keep the submitted facts, people and hiring owners’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying candidate assessments and selection criteria would create unnecessary risk.