Skip to content
Practical AI Program PlaybookNicholas Vidal

Back to the artifact library

Sheet 07 · ART-01

AI use-case register

The single list of every AI use case anyone has proposed, in progress, or running. If it is not here, the program cannot support it and leadership cannot see it.

Artifact details

Format
Register
Owner
AI Program Manager
When it is used
Created at intake, updated at every stage change, reviewed weekly.
Retention
Life of the use case plus the firm's records retention period.

Contributors: Requester, Business owner, Functional reviewers

Downloads

The filled export is generated from this site's sample records at the moment you click it — the same rows shown below, not a stored copy. The blank template is the same columns with no rows. Printing uses this page’s print stylesheet, which drops the navigation and the download controls.

Required fields

The guidance matters more than the field name. A field labelled “risks” with no guidance gets filled in with “standard AI risks” and the artifact stops being worth reading.

Fields in ART-01, with the guidance given to whoever fills them in.
FieldGuidanceRequired
IDSequential, permanent, never reused.Required
TitlePlain language. Someone outside the team should recognize it.Required
Business problemWhat is wrong today and what it costs. Not the tool.Required
Requesting team and proposed ownerA named person willing to own the outcome.Required
Data involved and classificationSpecific enough for Risk to answer without a follow-up.Required
External-facing, automated action, people decisionsThe three questions that drive triage.Required
Risk pathway and reasonsWhich answers put it there.Required
Success measuresHow anyone will know whether it worked.Required
Lifecycle stage and status noteWhere it is now and what it is waiting on.Required

The register as it stands

10 records, rendered from the same sample data the rest of the site reads. This is what the CSV export contains, field for field.

UC-001

Proposal narrative drafting from prior qualifications

ID
UC-001
Title
Proposal narrative drafting from prior qualifications
Requesting team
Marketing & Pursuits
Submitted by
Dee Okafor, Marketing & Pursuits Director
Submitted on
19 Jan 2026
Business problem
Proposal writers rebuild the same firm-experience narrative for every pursuit. First drafts take three to five hours and arrive late in the schedule, which compresses review time for the technical approach — the part that actually wins work.
Proposed capability
Draft proposal narrative sections from an approved library of past qualifications, then hand off to a writer for rework.
Tool
TL-03
Intended users
Proposal writers and pursuit coordinators
Estimated user count
22
Data involved
Approved qualifications library, published project descriptions, staff bios
Classification
Internal
External or client-facing
Yes
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Return three to four hours per pursuit to the writer and move first drafts earlier in the schedule.
Proposed owner
Dee Okafor, Marketing & Pursuits Director
Desired timeline
Pilot within one quarter
Success measures
Drafting hours per pursuit, before and after; Share of first drafts delivered before the internal review milestone; Writer-reported quality of the starting draft (1–5)
Known risks
Fabricated project details reaching a client submission; Stale or superseded project facts pulled from the library
Risk pathway
Structured review
Why this pathway
Output is client-facing, so accuracy errors leave the firm.; Uses a vendor-hosted tool approved with conditions rather than the general assistant.
Lifecycle stage
Measure
Pilot
PIL-001
Decisions
DEC-2026-02
Status note
Pilot complete through week 12; scale recommendation prepared for the September committee.

UC-002

Meeting summaries and action capture for project teams

ID
UC-002
Title
Meeting summaries and action capture for project teams
Requesting team
Operations & Project Delivery
Submitted by
Ken Adeyemi, Operations Director
Submitted on
28 Jan 2026
Business problem
Project coordination meetings produce inconsistent notes. Action items are captured by whoever remembers, which means commitments get lost between meetings.
Proposed capability
Use the approved assistant to summarize internal meeting notes and extract action items with owners and dates.
Tool
TL-01
Intended users
Project managers and coordinators firmwide
Estimated user count
190
Data involved
Internal meeting notes; no client-confidential material
Classification
Internal
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Consistent action tracking and roughly 30 minutes returned per meeting cycle.
Proposed owner
Ken Adeyemi, Operations Director
Desired timeline
Immediate — guidance only
Success measures
Share of project meetings with a written action list within 24 hours; Assistant usage among project managers
Known risks
Summaries treated as the record of decision without the owner reading them; Client-confidential content pasted in by habit
Risk pathway
Standard enablement
Why this pathway
Internal-only material in an approved tool.; Author reviews every output before it is shared; nothing is client-facing.
Lifecycle stage
Scale, modify, pause, or retire
Pilot
None
Decisions
DEC-2026-01
Status note
Approved as standard practice with a one-page quick reference. No pilot required — this is the reference example for how routine requests should feel.

UC-003

Specification cross-check against internal standards

ID
UC-003
Title
Specification cross-check against internal standards
Requesting team
Structural Practice Group
Submitted by
Alan Petrov, QA Lead
Submitted on
11 Feb 2026
Business problem
Project specifications drift from firm standards between revisions. QA catches conflicts late, when a fix means reissuing sheets.
Proposed capability
Compare a project specification section against the firm standard and list differences for an engineer to adjudicate. Advisory output only — the tool never edits the specification.
Tool
TL-02
Intended users
QA reviewers and senior project engineers
Estimated user count
14
Data involved
Internal standards library, project specification sections
Classification
Confidential
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Catch specification conflicts one review cycle earlier and reduce late reissues.
Proposed owner
Alan Petrov, QA Lead
Desired timeline
Pilot in Q2
Success measures
Conflicts identified per review, tool-assisted versus baseline; False-positive rate reported by reviewers; Late reissues attributable to specification conflict
Known risks
Missed conflicts creating false confidence in the review; Confidential project content entering a tool still under conditional approval
Risk pathway
Structured review
Why this pathway
Confidential project material is processed.; Output influences a professional quality review, so error patterns matter.; Tool is under conditional approval rather than fully approved.
Lifecycle stage
Pilot
Pilot
PIL-002
Decisions
DEC-2026-03
Status note
Active pilot in two offices; false-positive rate is the open question.

UC-004

Early-career recruiting screening and interview support

ID
UC-004
Title
Early-career recruiting screening and interview support
Requesting team
People & Culture
Submitted by
Grace Lin, People & Culture Director
Submitted on
04 Mar 2026
Business problem
Campus recruiting produces roughly 900 applications for 40 early-career openings. Two recruiters screen everything, so response times slip and strong candidates accept elsewhere.
Proposed capability
Originally proposed: automated resume screening with a candidate fit score and ranked shortlist. As approved: scheduling coordination and structured interview note capture, with no scoring, ranking, or filtering.
Tool
TL-04
Intended users
Recruiters and hiring managers
Estimated user count
26
Data involved
Applicant resumes and contact details; interview notes
Classification
Restricted
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
Yes
Expected benefit
Reduce time-to-first-response and give recruiters back the hours currently spent on scheduling.
Proposed owner
Grace Lin, People & Culture Director
Desired timeline
Before the fall campus cycle
Success measures
Median time from application to first recruiter contact; Recruiter hours spent on scheduling per week; Demographic composition of the interview slate compared with the applicant pool; Candidate experience rating
Known risks
Adverse impact on protected groups from any automated ranking; Applicant personal data retained beyond the recruiting retention schedule; Scope creep back toward scoring once the tool is in daily use
Risk pathway
Elevated review
Why this pathway
The use case affects employment decisions.; It processes sensitive personal data about individuals outside the firm.; As originally proposed, the tool would have produced a consequential ranking with limited human insight into the reasoning.
Lifecycle stage
Pilot
Pilot
PIL-004
Decisions
DEC-2026-04; DEC-2026-05
Status note
Screening scope declined. Reduced scope approved with conditions and a defined off-ramp. This is the elevated-pathway scenario.

UC-005

Thought-leadership article drafting for the public site

ID
UC-005
Title
Thought-leadership article drafting for the public site
Requesting team
Marketing & Pursuits
Submitted by
Dee Okafor, Marketing & Pursuits Director
Submitted on
22 Mar 2026
Business problem
Technical staff have publishable insight but rarely finish articles. The firm publishes four pieces a year against a target of two per month.
Proposed capability
Draft articles from an author's outline and interview notes; the named author revises and approves before publication.
Tool
TL-03
Intended users
Marketing writers with subject-matter authors
Estimated user count
9
Data involved
Author outlines, published project information, interview notes
Classification
Public
External or client-facing
Yes
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Increase publication volume without adding writing headcount.
Proposed owner
Dee Okafor, Marketing & Pursuits Director
Desired timeline
Q3
Success measures
Articles published per month; Author satisfaction with the draft they received; Corrections issued post-publication
Known risks
Technical claims published under a named engineer's byline that the engineer did not verify; Reputational exposure if AI-assisted content is later questioned
Risk pathway
Structured review
Why this pathway
Output is published publicly under the firm's name.; Content carries technical claims attributed to a named professional.
Lifecycle stage
Review
Pilot
None
Decisions
None
Status note
In structured review. Open question: what disclosure practice applies to AI-assisted content published under an individual byline?

UC-006

Accounts payable invoice coding assistance

ID
UC-006
Title
Accounts payable invoice coding assistance
Requesting team
Finance & Procurement
Submitted by
Sofia Brand, Controller
Submitted on
08 Apr 2026
Business problem
AP staff hand-code roughly 2,400 invoices a month to projects and cost categories. Coding errors surface in month-end close and require rework across two teams.
Proposed capability
Suggest project and cost coding for each invoice, then post approved entries to the accounting system.
Tool
TL-05
Intended users
Accounts payable specialists
Estimated user count
6
Data involved
Vendor invoices, project cost structures, banking references
Classification
Confidential
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Sampled review
Automated actions
Yes
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Reduce coding rework and shorten the close cycle by one to two days.
Proposed owner
Sofia Brand, Controller
Desired timeline
Pilot in Q2, decision by Q3
Success measures
Coding error rate against a manual audit sample; Rework hours in month-end close; Time from invoice receipt to posting
Known risks
Incorrect entries posted to the financial system of record; Vendor subprocessor exposure to financial data; Sampled review missing systematic error patterns
Risk pathway
Elevated review
Why this pathway
The tool takes automated action in a business system of record.; Confidential financial data is processed by a vendor whose subprocessors are not yet documented.; Only sampled human review was proposed for actions with financial consequences.
Lifecycle stage
Review
Pilot
PIL-005
Decisions
DEC-2026-06
Status note
Pilot paused pending vendor data-processing documentation. Not cancelled; resume criteria are written down.

UC-007

Standards library search for engineering staff

ID
UC-007
Title
Standards library search for engineering staff
Requesting team
Data & Reporting
Submitted by
Tomas Reyes, Data & Reporting Manager
Submitted on
25 Feb 2026
Business problem
The internal standards library holds 4,100 documents across three generations of naming conventions. Engineers ask colleagues instead of searching, and answers vary by office.
Proposed capability
Retrieval-based search over the standards library that answers questions with citations to the source document and revision.
Tool
TL-02
Intended users
Engineering staff firmwide
Estimated user count
340
Data involved
Internal standards library only; no project or client material
Classification
Internal
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Cut time spent locating the current standard and reduce inconsistent answers between offices.
Proposed owner
Tomas Reyes, Data & Reporting Manager
Desired timeline
Pilot in Q2, firmwide consideration in Q4
Success measures
Median time to locate a current standard; Citation accuracy against a 100-question test set; Weekly active users among engineering staff
Known risks
Answers drawn from superseded revisions; Confidence in an answer that cites a document the user cannot access
Risk pathway
Structured review
Why this pathway
A new tool indexes a firmwide document collection.; Answers influence engineering practice, so citation accuracy has to be measured before scale.
Lifecycle stage
Measure
Pilot
PIL-003
Decisions
DEC-2026-03
Status note
Measuring. Citation accuracy at 91% against the test set; target for scale is 95%.

UC-008

Client deliverable summarization for project handoffs

ID
UC-008
Title
Client deliverable summarization for project handoffs
Requesting team
Civil Practice Group
Submitted by
Project manager, Civil Practice Group
Submitted on
30 May 2026
Business problem
When a project changes hands, the incoming manager reads several hundred pages of correspondence and deliverables to get current. Handoffs take two weeks.
Proposed capability
Summarize project correspondence and deliverables into a handoff briefing.
Tool
None identified
Intended users
Project managers in the Civil Practice Group
Estimated user count
45
Data involved
Client-confidential correspondence and deliverables
Classification
Restricted
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Reduce handoff ramp-up from two weeks to under one.
Proposed owner
Not yet named — the request came in without an owner
Desired timeline
Unspecified
Success measures
Not yet defined
Known risks
Client contracts may restrict processing project material in third-party services; No named owner means no one accountable for the outcome
Risk pathway
Elevated review
Why this pathway
Client-restricted material is in scope, and contract terms vary by client.; No tool has been identified, so there is nothing to review yet.
Lifecycle stage
Triage
Pilot
None
Decisions
None
Status note
Clarifying. Two questions back to the requester: which client agreements govern this material, and who will own the outcome? Nothing proceeds until both are answered.

UC-009

Calculation script drafting for internal engineering tools

ID
UC-009
Title
Calculation script drafting for internal engineering tools
Requesting team
Structural Practice Group
Submitted by
Senior engineer, Structural Practice Group
Submitted on
15 Jun 2026
Business problem
Engineers write small spreadsheet and script utilities for repetitive calculations. Each one is built from scratch and none are reviewed consistently.
Proposed capability
Use the approved assistant to draft calculation scripts, which are then verified against hand calculations before any project use.
Tool
TL-01
Intended users
Engineers with scripting responsibilities
Estimated user count
30
Data involved
No project data — generic formulas and code only
Classification
Internal
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Faster utility development with a consistent verification expectation attached.
Proposed owner
Alan Petrov, QA Lead
Desired timeline
Guidance in Q3
Success measures
Share of AI-assisted utilities with a documented verification record; Utility development hours
Known risks
An unverified script used on a project deliverable; Verification treated as a formality rather than an independent check
Risk pathway
Standard enablement
Why this pathway
Approved tool, no project or client data involved.; Every output is independently verified against hand calculations before use.
Lifecycle stage
Review
Pilot
None
Decisions
None
Status note
Standard pathway with one condition being drafted with the QA lead: verification evidence must be attached to the utility before project use.

UC-010

Field photo sorting for punch-list documentation

ID
UC-010
Title
Field photo sorting for punch-list documentation
Requesting team
Operations & Project Delivery
Submitted by
Field coordinator, Operations
Submitted on
21 Jul 2026
Business problem
Site visits produce 200 to 400 photos. Sorting and labeling them for the punch list takes an afternoon per visit.
Proposed capability
Group and label site photos by location and issue type for a coordinator to confirm.
Tool
TL-01
Intended users
Field coordinators
Estimated user count
18
Data involved
Site photography; some images include client facilities and occasionally people
Classification
Confidential
External or client-facing
No
Human review
Every output reviewed by a person
Automated actions
No
Affects decisions about people
No
Expected benefit
Return roughly three hours per site visit to the coordinator.
Proposed owner
Ken Adeyemi, Operations Director
Desired timeline
Q4
Success measures
Hours per site visit spent on photo processing; Labeling accuracy confirmed by the coordinator
Known risks
Images of identifiable people processed without a clear basis; Client site imagery subject to confidentiality terms
Risk pathway
Structured review
Why this pathway
Confidential client site imagery is processed.; Images may contain identifiable individuals, which brings privacy into the review.
Lifecycle stage
Intake
Pilot
None
Decisions
None
Status note
Queued for the next weekly triage. Privacy review requested in advance.

Blank template

The same fields with nothing in them. Print this page, or use the download above to get a standalone file.

ID

Sequential, permanent, never reused.

Title

Plain language. Someone outside the team should recognize it.

Business problem

What is wrong today and what it costs. Not the tool.

Requesting team and proposed owner

A named person willing to own the outcome.

Data involved and classification

Specific enough for Risk to answer without a follow-up.

External-facing, automated action, people decisions

The three questions that drive triage.

Risk pathway and reasons

Which answers put it there.

Success measures

How anyone will know whether it worked.

Lifecycle stage and status note

Where it is now and what it is waiting on.