Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The request sits in research and analytics and connects participant interviews and consented research context with coded themes and selected extracts. That context distinguishes it from a generic permission to use AI.
- 1Task and owner
- Qualitative researcher wants to summarise interview transcripts. Name who owns the finished coded themes and selected extracts; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Participant interviews and consented research context. Check uploads, history and connected systems before describing the request as low sensitivity.
- 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 coded themes and selected extracts. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Participants may be identifiable from distinctive experiences even after names are removed. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- research 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 request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum personal research information is used, coded themes and selected extracts remains within the stated purpose, and research and privacy owners reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
The request moves beyond routine handling when the account or data handling is uncertain, participants may be identifiable from distinctive experiences even after names are removed, or coded themes and selected extracts 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 and privacy owners can intervene, or follow consent, minimise quotations and retain links to source context cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Has the company approved this account configuration for summarise interview transcripts, rather than only approving the product?
- 02
Could participant interviews and consented research context be reduced to a short de-identified extract?
- 03
At what point does coded themes and selected extracts move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
Who replaces research and privacy owners when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 05
When must the employee stop and run the policy check again?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- qualitative researcher
- task
- Use AI to summarise interview transcripts.
- information
- participant interviews and consented research context
- 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 and privacy owners
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Follow consent, minimise quotations and retain links to source context
- ✓
Start with a de-identified sample of participant interviews and consented research context before considering broader access.
- ✓
Write the boundary around coded themes and selected extracts clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
Keep the submitted facts, research and privacy owners’s decision and the exact published policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to summarise interview transcripts automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of coded themes and selected extracts can produce another route.
What belongs in the employee’s request?
Describe coded themes and selected extracts, identify participant interviews and consented research context, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how research and privacy owners will review it.
How much of the request should the company retain?
Keep the submitted facts, research and privacy owners’s decision and the exact published policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying participant interviews and consented research context would create unnecessary risk.