Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, a private module, interfaces and test suite is the input boundary and a proposed refactor is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- Software engineer wants to refactor a software module. Record the person who will stand behind a proposed refactor after the tool has finished.
- 2Information involved
- A private module, interfaces and test suite. Account for every route by which the tool receives the material, including plug-ins and linked storage.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Approval must cover the account and its settings, not merely the product name.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a proposed refactor. State whether another person will see it, rely on it or receive an action produced from it.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- A large generated change can alter behaviour that tests do not cover. A familiar task still needs escalation when this consequence becomes plausible.
- 6Human review
- code owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. The reviewer needs the source material and must be able to reject the output before it takes effect.
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 proprietary source code is used, a proposed refactor remains within the stated purpose, and code owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, a large generated change can alter behaviour that tests do not cover, or a proposed refactor 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 code owner can intervene, or make small reviewable changes and verify interfaces, migrations and rollback 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 refactor a software module, rather than only approving the product?
- 02
Does the proposed input include more of a private module, interfaces and test suite than the result actually requires?
- 03
Who receives a proposed refactor, and what will they do with it?
- 04
Does code owner have enough authority and time to stop 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
- software engineer
- task
- Use AI to refactor a software module.
- information
- a private module, interfaces and test suite
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Draft or analyse
- impact
- Production software
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- code owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Make small reviewable changes and verify interfaces, migrations and rollback
- ✓
Separate source material from the request record and expose only what the tool needs for a proposed refactor.
- ✓
Reassess the request whenever its tool, information classification, frequency or consequence changes.
- ✓
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 refactor a software module automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a proposed refactor can produce another route.
When is the request detailed enough to decide?
Describe a proposed refactor, identify a private module, interfaces and test suite, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how code owner will review it.
What should remain after the decision?
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying a private module, interfaces and test suite would create unnecessary risk.