Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, study criteria, approved protocol and participant information is the input boundary and a recruitment message is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- Research coordinator wants to draft research participant recruitment copy. The policy check should identify who can approve, correct or withdraw a recruitment message.
- 2Information involved
- Study criteria, approved protocol and participant information. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 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 a recruitment message. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The message can overpromise benefit or omit important participation information. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- research ethics owner 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 company can consider a standard route where the exact account is approved, only the minimum research protocol information is used, a recruitment message remains within the stated purpose, and research ethics owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Specialist approval becomes relevant if the account or data handling is uncertain, the message can overpromise benefit or omit important participation information, or a recruitment message 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 ethics owner can intervene, or use approved wording and verify eligibility and contact rules 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 draft research participant recruitment copy, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in study criteria, approved protocol and participant information, and does the tool need it?
- 03
At what point does a recruitment message move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Who replaces research ethics owner when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 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
- research coordinator
- task
- Use AI to draft research participant recruitment copy.
- information
- study criteria, approved protocol and participant information
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- External participant communication
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- research ethics owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use approved wording and verify eligibility and contact rules
- ✓
Start with a de-identified sample of study criteria, approved protocol and participant information before considering broader access.
- ✓
Set an expiry or review point when recurring work turns into a permanent process.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted a recruitment message, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to draft research participant recruitment copy automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a recruitment message can produce another route.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a recruitment message, identify study criteria, approved protocol and participant information, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research ethics owner will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Preserve who accepted a recruitment message, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying study criteria, approved protocol and participant information would create unnecessary risk.