Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The request sits in research and analytics and connects published papers and a defined research question with a literature summary and source map. That context distinguishes it from a generic permission to use AI.
- 1Task and owner
- Research analyst wants to summarise academic literature. Name who owns the finished a literature summary and source map; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Published papers and a defined research question. 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 a literature summary and source map. Its destination matters: private working material creates a different consequence from a sent, published or automated result.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The model may invent papers or flatten disagreement between sources. The policy route should reflect this possible harm instead of relying on how ordinary the task sounds.
- 6Human review
- research lead 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
A routine route is easier to justify when the exact account is approved, only the minimum public research information is used, a literature summary and source map remains within the stated purpose, and research lead reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, the model may invent papers or flatten disagreement between sources, or a literature summary and source map 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 research lead can intervene, or open every cited source and preserve methods, dates and conflicting findings 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 summarise academic literature, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in published papers and a defined research question, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Will a literature summary and source map remain working material, reach another person or make another system act?
- 04
Who replaces research lead 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 analyst
- task
- Use AI to summarise academic literature.
- information
- published papers and a defined research question
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Internal work
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- research lead
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Open every cited source and preserve methods, dates and conflicting findings
- ✓
Reduce published papers and a defined research question to the smallest useful extract and remove fields unrelated to a literature summary and source map.
- ✓
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 summarise academic literature automatically allowed?
Treat this as a request pattern. The authoritative answer comes from the current company policy and the employee’s completed submission.
What belongs in the employee’s request?
Describe a literature summary and source map, identify published papers and a defined research question, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research lead will review it.
How much of the request should the company retain?
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying published papers and a defined research question would create unnecessary risk.