Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is health measures, participant records and study context; the intended result is statistical or qualitative research insights. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Health researcher wants to analyse sensitive health research data. Record the person who will stand behind statistical or qualitative research insights after the tool has finished.
- 2Information involved
- Health measures, participant records and study context. Look beyond pasted text: files, integrations and retrieval connections can expose the same material.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. The request should identify the exact account because product-level approval leaves important controls unknown.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is statistical or qualitative research insights. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Health data is highly sensitive and outputs may re-identify small groups. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 6Human review
- research ethics, privacy and scientific owners should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Make the review happen before reliance and give the reviewer a real way to stop the work.
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 least restrictive path starts only after the exact account is approved, only the minimum sensitive health information is used, statistical or qualitative research insights remains within the stated purpose, and research ethics, privacy and scientific owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, health data is highly sensitive and outputs may re-identify small groups, or statistical or qualitative research insights reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The company may need a safer design when restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before research ethics, privacy and scientific owners can intervene, or use controlled infrastructure, minimise variables and review disclosure risk 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 sensitive health research data run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose health measures, participant records and study context to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
At what point does statistical or qualitative research insights move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Does research ethics, privacy and scientific owners have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 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
- health researcher
- task
- Use AI to analyse sensitive health research data.
- information
- health measures, participant records and study context
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Health research
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- research ethics, privacy and scientific owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use controlled infrastructure, minimise variables and review disclosure risk
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for statistical or qualitative research insights.
- ✓
Treat a new purpose, region, data source or recipient as a new request rather than silently extending this one.
- ✓
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to analyse sensitive health research data 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.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe statistical or qualitative research insights, identify health measures, participant records and study context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research ethics, privacy and scientific owners will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying health measures, participant records and study context would create unnecessary risk.