Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, consented research notes and study objectives is the input boundary and themes and design implications is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- User researcher wants to summarise UX research notes. The request needs an accountable owner for themes and design implications, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- Consented research notes and study objectives. Account for every route by which the tool receives the material, including plug-ins and linked storage.
- 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 themes and design implications. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Participants may be identifiable and strong quotes can dominate the summary. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 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 company can consider a standard route where the exact account is approved, only the minimum participant personal information is used, themes and design implications remains within the stated purpose, and research owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Specialist approval becomes relevant if the account or data handling is uncertain, participants may be identifiable and strong quotes can dominate the summary, or themes and design implications 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 research owner can intervene, or remove identifiers and check themes against the full sample 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 UX research notes run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Could consented research notes and study objectives be reduced to a short de-identified extract?
- 03
Will themes and design implications remain working material, reach another person or make another system act?
- 04
Can research owner inspect the complete result and its source before reliance?
- 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 UX research notes.
- information
- consented research notes and study objectives
- 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
- ✓
Remove identifiers and check themes against the full sample
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for themes and design implications.
- ✓
Write the boundary around themes and design implications clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
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 UX research notes automatically allowed?
The company policy supplies the answer after it receives the real tool, data, purpose, impact and review plan. This page only prepares those facts.
What belongs in the employee’s request?
Describe themes and design implications, identify consented research notes and study objectives, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research owner will review it.
How much of the request should the company retain?
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying consented research notes and study objectives would create unnecessary risk.