Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The request sits in software engineering and connects API definitions, examples and supported behaviour with developer documentation. That context distinguishes it from a generic permission to use AI.
- 1Task and owner
- Developer advocate wants to draft API documentation. The request needs an accountable owner for developer documentation, even when the tool prepares most of the first draft.
- 2Information involved
- API definitions, examples and supported behaviour. Check uploads, history and connected systems before describing the request as low sensitivity.
- 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 developer documentation. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Invented parameters or outdated examples can break customer integrations. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- API owner 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 internal information is used, developer documentation remains within the stated purpose, and API owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, invented parameters or outdated examples can break customer integrations, or developer documentation reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.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 API owner can intervene, or run examples and compare every field with the released API version cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Will draft API documentation run inside the approved company environment from start to finish?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose API definitions, examples and supported behaviour to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
Who receives developer documentation, and what will they do with it?
- 04
Who replaces API owner 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
- developer advocate
- task
- Use AI to draft API documentation.
- information
- API definitions, examples and supported behaviour
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- External technical publication
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- API owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Run examples and compare every field with the released API version
- ✓
Document why each part of API definitions, examples and supported behaviour is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Keep the use within draft or analyse and run another check if the audience, tool or intended effect changes.
- ✓
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to draft API documentation automatically allowed?
Treat this as a request pattern. The authoritative answer comes from the current company policy and the employee’s completed submission.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe developer documentation, identify API definitions, examples and supported behaviour, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how API owner will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying API definitions, examples and supported behaviour would create unnecessary risk.