Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within people and hr, this request uses candidate CVs and role criteria to produce a shortlist or screening recommendation. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- Talent acquisition lead wants to screen candidate CVs. Responsibility for a shortlist or screening recommendation stays with a named person or team throughout the request.
- 2Information involved
- Candidate CVs and role criteria. 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 shortlist or screening recommendation. Follow the result to its real endpoint so the request captures its practical effect.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Personal data and proxy factors can affect who receives an interview. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- recruiting and people owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Review is meaningful only when that person has enough context and authority to change the result.
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 candidate personal information is used, a shortlist or screening recommendation remains within the stated purpose, and recruiting and people owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, personal data and proxy factors can affect who receives an interview, or a shortlist or screening recommendation 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 recruiting and people owner can intervene, or define job-related criteria, test outcomes and keep meaningful human review 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 screen candidate CVs, rather than only approving the product?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in candidate CVs and role criteria, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Who receives a shortlist or screening recommendation, and what will they do with it?
- 04
What evidence will recruiting and people owner use to accept, correct or reject the result?
- 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
- talent acquisition lead
- task
- Use AI to screen candidate CVs.
- information
- candidate CVs and role 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
- recruiting and people owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Define job-related criteria, test outcomes and keep meaningful human review
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for a shortlist or screening recommendation.
- ✓
Keep the use within analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, recruiting and people owner’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to screen candidate CVs automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a shortlist or screening recommendation can produce another route.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe a shortlist or screening recommendation, identify candidate CVs and role criteria, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how recruiting and people owner will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Keep the submitted facts, recruiting and people owner’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying candidate CVs and role criteria would create unnecessary risk.