Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is prototype context, terminology and user task; the intended result is interface copy for testing. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Content designer wants to write copy for a product prototype. Name who owns the finished interface copy for testing; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Prototype context, terminology and user task. Account for every route by which the tool receives the material, including plug-ins and linked storage.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Approval must cover the account and its settings, not merely the product name.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is interface copy for testing. Record the audience and the next system in the chain, rather than describing the output only as a draft.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The copy may imply functionality, consent or legal effect the prototype lacks. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 6Human review
- content and product owners 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
A routine route is easier to justify when the exact account is approved, only the minimum internal information is used, interface copy for testing remains within the stated purpose, and content and product owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, the copy may imply functionality, consent or legal effect the prototype lacks, or interface copy for testing 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 content and product owners can intervene, or label prototypes clearly and review consequential wording before release cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Which approved account will perform write copy for a product prototype, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in prototype context, terminology and user task, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Could someone treat interface copy for testing as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Will content and product owners review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 05
Which change in tool, data, purpose or impact would require a fresh request?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- content designer
- task
- Use AI to write copy for a product prototype.
- information
- prototype context, terminology and user task
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- User-facing product experience
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- content and product owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Label prototypes clearly and review consequential wording before release
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for interface copy for testing.
- ✓
Keep the use within draft or analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted interface copy for testing, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to write copy for a product prototype automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to prototype context, terminology and user task, the exact account, interface copy for testing, its audience and the proposed review.
Which facts should be submitted before work begins?
Describe interface copy for testing, identify prototype context, terminology and user task, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how content and product owners will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Preserve who accepted interface copy for testing, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying prototype context, terminology and user task would create unnecessary risk.