Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The request sits in product and design and connects feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals with a proposed release scope. That context distinguishes it from a generic permission to use AI.
- 1Task and owner
- Release product manager wants to recommend what enters a software release. Record the person who will stand behind a proposed release scope after the tool has finished.
- 2Information involved
- Feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals. Check uploads, history and connected systems before describing the request as low sensitivity.
- 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 proposed release scope. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- A recommendation can ignore unresolved security, quality or contractual conditions. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- release decision group 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 company can consider a standard route where the exact account is approved, only the minimum confidential product information is used, a proposed release scope remains within the stated purpose, and release decision group reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, a recommendation can ignore unresolved security, quality or contractual conditions, or a proposed release scope reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The proposed use should pause if restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before release decision group can intervene, or keep release gates explicit and let named owners approve exceptions 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 recommend what enters a software release?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals be removed?
- 03
Will a proposed release scope remain working material, reach another person or make another system act?
- 04
Does release decision group have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 05
Is this genuinely one request, or will repeated use turn it into an embedded process?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- release product manager
- task
- Use AI to recommend what enters a software release.
- information
- feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Product release decision
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- release decision group
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Keep release gates explicit and let named owners approve exceptions
- ✓
Start with a de-identified sample of feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals before considering broader access.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals into the audit trail.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to recommend what enters a software release automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary recommend what enters a software release request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a proposed release scope, identify feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how release decision group will review it.
What belongs in the completed policy record?
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals into the audit trail. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying feature status, risks, dependencies and launch goals would create unnecessary risk.