Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within product and design, this request uses session recordings, notes and task outcomes to produce a usability finding summary. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- User researcher wants to summarise usability sessions. The request needs an accountable owner for a usability finding summary, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- Session recordings, notes and task outcomes. 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 usability finding summary. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The summary can omit failed tasks or expose participant identities. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- research owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. The reviewer needs the source material and must be able to reject the output before it takes effect.
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 participant personal information is used, a usability finding summary remains within the stated purpose, and research owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Send the request for approval if the account or data handling is uncertain, the summary can omit failed tasks or expose participant identities, or a usability finding summary 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 research owner can intervene, or retain task evidence and anonymise quotations and recordings 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 summarise usability sessions run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of session recordings, notes and task outcomes than the result actually requires?
- 03
At what point does a usability finding summary move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Will research owner review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 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
- user researcher
- task
- Use AI to summarise usability sessions.
- information
- session recordings, notes and task outcomes
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Internal work
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- research owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Retain task evidence and anonymise quotations and recordings
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for a usability finding summary.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to summarise usability sessions automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a usability finding summary can produce another route.
Which facts should be submitted before work begins?
Describe a usability finding summary, identify session recordings, notes and task outcomes, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research owner will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying session recordings, notes and task outcomes would create unnecessary risk.