Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is current interface copy, hypothesis and audience; the intended result is controlled experiment variants. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Growth product manager wants to draft copy variants for an A/B test. Name who owns the finished controlled experiment variants; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Current interface copy, hypothesis and audience. Check uploads, history and connected systems before describing the request as low sensitivity.
- 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 controlled experiment variants. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- A variant may manipulate users or alter consent and pricing meaning. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- product and legal owners where relevant 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 internal information is used, controlled experiment variants remains within the stated purpose, and product and legal owners where relevant reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, a variant may manipulate users or alter consent and pricing meaning, or controlled experiment variants 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 product and legal owners where relevant can intervene, or keep the tested change within the approved hypothesis and review consequential wording 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 draft copy variants for an A/B test run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Could current interface copy, hypothesis and audience be reduced to a short de-identified extract?
- 03
At what point does controlled experiment variants move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Who replaces product and legal owners where relevant when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 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
- growth product manager
- task
- Use AI to draft copy variants for an A/B test.
- information
- current interface copy, hypothesis and audience
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- User-facing experiment
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- product and legal owners where relevant
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Keep the tested change within the approved hypothesis and review consequential wording
- ✓
Keep whole files, mailboxes and datasets out of the prompt when a short part of current interface copy, hypothesis and audience is enough.
- ✓
Keep the use within draft or analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of current interface copy, hypothesis and audience into the audit trail.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to draft copy variants for an A/B test automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary draft copy variants for an A/B test request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
What belongs in the employee’s request?
Describe controlled experiment variants, identify current interface copy, hypothesis and audience, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how product and legal owners where relevant will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of current interface copy, hypothesis and audience into the audit trail. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying current interface copy, hypothesis and audience would create unnecessary risk.