Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The request sits in software engineering and connects private source code and security rules with possible vulnerability findings. That context distinguishes it from a generic permission to use AI.
- 1Task and owner
- Application security engineer wants to scan source code for security weaknesses. Name who owns the finished possible vulnerability findings; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- Private source code and security rules. Account for every route by which the tool receives the material, including plug-ins and linked storage.
- 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 possible vulnerability findings. Record the audience and the next system in the chain, rather than describing the output only as a draft.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Source disclosure and noisy findings can either expose secrets or distract from real risk. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- application security 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
The request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum proprietary source code and security details is used, possible vulnerability findings remains within the stated purpose, and application security owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, source disclosure and noisy findings can either expose secrets or distract from real risk, or possible vulnerability findings 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 application security owner can intervene, or use an approved environment and validate findings with secure testing cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Is the exact account approved for scan source code for security weaknesses, including its plug-ins and connected sources?
- 02
Could private source code and security rules be reduced to a short de-identified extract?
- 03
Could someone treat possible vulnerability findings as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Does application security owner have enough authority and time to stop the result?
- 05
Which change in tool, data, purpose or impact would require a fresh request?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- application security engineer
- task
- Use AI to scan source code for security weaknesses.
- information
- private source code and security rules
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Security response
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- application security owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use an approved environment and validate findings with secure testing
- ✓
Reduce private source code and security rules to the smallest useful extract and remove fields unrelated to possible vulnerability findings.
- ✓
Set an expiry or review point when recurring work turns into a permanent process.
- ✓
Preserve who accepted possible vulnerability findings, when they did so and which rule version they applied.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to scan source code for security weaknesses automatically allowed?
Even an ordinary scan source code for security weaknesses request can change route when it involves restricted information, an external audience or weak review.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe possible vulnerability findings, identify private source code and security rules, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how application security owner will review it.
How much of the request should the company retain?
Preserve who accepted possible vulnerability findings, when they did so and which rule version they applied. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying private source code and security rules would create unnecessary risk.