Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules is the input boundary and a public research report draft is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- Research lead wants to prepare a public research report. Responsibility for a public research report draft stays with a named person or team throughout the request.
- 2Information involved
- Approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules. Look beyond pasted text: files, integrations and retrieval connections can expose the same material.
- 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 a public research report draft. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Confidential data, unsupported claims or re-identifiable examples can enter the report. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- research and publication owners should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. A final glance after an automatic action would not give that owner meaningful control.
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 research data and findings is used, a public research report draft remains within the stated purpose, and research and publication owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, confidential data, unsupported claims or re-identifiable examples can enter the report, or a public research report draft 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 and publication owners can intervene, or reproduce results, check disclosure risk and approve every public claim 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 prepare a public research report, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules be removed?
- 03
At what point does a public research report draft move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Who replaces research and publication owners 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 lead
- task
- Use AI to prepare a public research report.
- information
- approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- External publication
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- research and publication owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Reproduce results, check disclosure risk and approve every public claim
- ✓
Reduce approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules to the smallest useful extract and remove fields unrelated to a public research report draft.
- ✓
Set an expiry or review point when recurring work turns into a permanent process.
- ✓
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules into the audit trail.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to prepare a public research report automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary prepare a public research report request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a public research report draft, identify approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research and publication owners will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules into the audit trail. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying approved analysis, sources and disclosure rules would create unnecessary risk.