1. Scope
The proposed use is limited to drafting summaries from approved internal articles. Customer records, employee files, legal advice, and automated external communications are excluded.
Synthetic example
Example: an evidence-linked AI vendor approval memo
This fictional structure demonstrates how a decision record can distinguish evidence, findings, unresolved questions, and accountable ownership.
- Vendor
- Northstar Assist
- Proposed use
- Draft internal summaries from non-confidential knowledge articles
- Decision owner
- Business operations lead
- Recommendation
- Limited use with conditions
2. Evidence reviewed
- Vendor architecture summary, identified as vendor-provided
- Data handling response mapped to the proposed workflow
- Access-control description and current test summary
- Internal workflow diagram and business-owner interview
3. Material findings
The service can be configured for the narrow drafting workflow. Human review is available before a summary is used. Available evidence does not establish suitability for confidential or consequential workflows.
4. Open gaps
- Deletion behavior for backup copies needs clarification.
- Change-notification detail is incomplete.
- The internal team has not yet defined a quality sampling process.
5. Conditions
- Use only approved, non-confidential source material.
- Require a person to review every draft before use.
- Disable unapproved integrations.
- Reassess before expanding the use case or data scope.
6. Ownership
The business operations lead owns adherence to the defined use. Security and privacy reviewers own their stated follow-ups. The final decision remains with the organization’s designated approver.