Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Within research and analytics, this request uses participant-level data and an approved research plan to produce research findings and exploratory patterns. Both belong in the submission before any policy route is trusted.
- 1Task and owner
- Research scientist wants to analyse research data about identifiable people. The request needs an accountable owner for research findings and exploratory patterns, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- Participant-level data and an approved research plan. 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 research findings and exploratory patterns. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- AI processing may fall outside participant expectations or expose identities. The policy route should reflect this possible harm instead of relying on how ordinary the task sounds.
- 6Human review
- research ethics and privacy owners 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 personal research information is used, research findings and exploratory patterns remains within the stated purpose, and research ethics and privacy owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, ai processing may fall outside participant expectations or expose identities, or research findings and exploratory patterns reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The policy may require another method where restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before research ethics and privacy owners can intervene, or confirm the lawful and consented use, minimise data and use an approved environment 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 analyse research data about identifiable people run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose participant-level data and an approved research plan to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
Could someone treat research findings and exploratory patterns as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Who replaces research ethics and privacy owners when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 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
- research scientist
- task
- Use AI to analyse research data about identifiable people.
- information
- participant-level data and an approved research plan
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Research finding
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- research ethics and privacy owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Confirm the lawful and consented use, minimise data and use an approved environment
- ✓
Start with a de-identified sample of participant-level data and an approved research plan before considering broader access.
- ✓
Set an expiry or review point when recurring work turns into a permanent process.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted research findings and exploratory patterns, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to analyse research data about identifiable people automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to participant-level data and an approved research plan, the exact account, research findings and exploratory patterns, its audience and the proposed review.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe research findings and exploratory patterns, identify participant-level data and an approved research plan, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research ethics and privacy owners will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Preserve who accepted research findings and exploratory patterns, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying participant-level data and an approved research plan would create unnecessary risk.