Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Here the tool receives a chart, source data and intended audience, while someone ultimately relies on a plain-language chart explanation. The policy must evaluate the whole path between them.
- 1Task and owner
- Business analyst wants to write an explanation for a chart. Name who owns the finished a plain-language chart explanation; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- A chart, source data and intended audience. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Treat a new plug-in or connector as a change to the approved setup.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a plain-language chart explanation. Follow the result to its real endpoint so the request captures its practical effect.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The text may imply causation or certainty absent from the visual. This is the fact most likely to move the request from routine handling into review.
- 6Human review
- analyst responsible for the chart should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Their role should include checking source facts, correcting errors and refusing the proposed use.
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 business information is used, a plain-language chart explanation remains within the stated purpose, and analyst responsible for the chart reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Send the request for approval if the account or data handling is uncertain, the text may imply causation or certainty absent from the visual, or a plain-language chart explanation 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 analyst responsible for the chart can intervene, or state what the data shows, its period and any important limitation 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 write an explanation for a chart, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
Could a chart, source data and intended audience be reduced to a short de-identified extract?
- 03
At what point does a plain-language chart explanation move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
What evidence will analyst responsible for the chart use to accept, correct or reject the result?
- 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
- business analyst
- task
- Use AI to write an explanation for a chart.
- information
- a chart, source data and intended audience
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Stakeholder reporting
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- analyst responsible for the chart
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
State what the data shows, its period and any important limitation
- ✓
Reduce a chart, source data and intended audience to the smallest useful extract and remove fields unrelated to a plain-language chart explanation.
- ✓
Write the boundary around a plain-language chart explanation clearly so later users do not expand the approval by assumption.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted a plain-language chart explanation, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to write an explanation for a chart automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a plain-language chart explanation can produce another route.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a plain-language chart explanation, identify a chart, source data and intended audience, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how analyst responsible for the chart will review it.
Which evidence makes the answer reproducible?
Preserve who accepted a plain-language chart explanation, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying a chart, source data and intended audience would create unnecessary risk.