Sheet 07 · ART-03

Decision log

What was decided, by whom, why, and what was considered and rejected. This is what makes the program defensible a year later when the people involved have moved on.

Format: Log
Owner: AI Program Manager maintains it; the decision owner approves the entry.
When it is used: Within two business days of any governance or functional decision.
Retention: Permanent within the program record set.

Contributors: Decision owner, Governance committee chair

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-03, with the guidance given to whoever fills them in.
Field	Guidance	Required
ID and date	Sequential and dated.	Required
Topic	The question that was actually decided.	Required
Forum and decision owner	The authorized owner. Never the program manager alone.	Required
Decision	Stated so someone can tell whether they are complying with it.	Required
Rationale	The reasoning, including the fact that settled it.	Required
Alternatives considered	What was rejected and why. The most-skipped and most-valuable field.	Required
Conditions	Each one traceable to an owner and a date.	Optional
Linked records and review date	Decisions expire; put the date in.	Required

The register as it stands

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

DEC-2026-01

Meeting summarization as standard practice

ID: DEC-2026-01
Date: 06 Feb 2026
Topic: Meeting summarization as standard practice
Forum: AI Governance Committee
Decision owner: Priya Raman, Director of Technology
Decision: Approved as standard practice firmwide using the approved assistant, with a one-page quick reference and no pilot required.
Rationale: Internal material, approved tool, author review on every output. Routing this through a pilot would have added six weeks and produced no information anyone needed.
Alternatives considered and rejected: Run a formal pilot first — rejected as disproportionate to the risk; Restrict to project managers only — rejected as unnecessarily narrow
Conditions: Quick reference published before the announcement; Client-confidential content excluded; covered explicitly in the guidance
Linked records: UC-002; TL-01
Review on: 06 Feb 2027

DEC-2026-02

Pursuit draft assist pilot approval

ID: DEC-2026-02
Date: 24 Feb 2026
Topic: Pursuit draft assist pilot approval
Forum: AI Governance Committee
Decision owner: Priya Raman, Director of Technology
Decision: Approved a 12-week pilot with 22 participants in two practice groups, conditioned on named-writer review of every draft.
Rationale: Client-facing output warrants structured review, but the accuracy risk is manageable when a writer owns every submission and the source library is approved material.
Alternatives considered and rejected: Firmwide rollout without a pilot — rejected; no measurement of accuracy risk; Marketing-only scope — modified to include one practice group so the hour savings could be tested outside the requesting team
Conditions: No client-confidential input; Accuracy corrections logged and reported at the pilot review; Renewal decision informed by measured hours, not license count
Linked records: UC-001; PIL-001; TL-03
Review on: 15 Sep 2026

DEC-2026-03

Cadence Search conditional approval for two pilots

ID: DEC-2026-03
Date: 02 Apr 2026
Topic: Cadence Search conditional approval for two pilots
Forum: Security review with Data & Reporting
Decision owner: Marcus Dell, Information Security Manager
Decision: Conditional approval for the standards-library corpus only, covering the knowledge-search and specification cross-check pilots. Full approval withheld pending the vendor penetration-test summary.
Rationale: The corpus is internal-only and permissions mirror the source library. The outstanding vendor documentation does not justify blocking a scoped internal pilot, but it does justify a time-boxed exception rather than silent acceptance.
Alternatives considered and rejected: Full approval — rejected; vendor documentation incomplete; Block until documentation arrives — rejected; the corpus is low sensitivity and the exception is time-boxed
Conditions: Standards library only; no project or client documents; Exception EXC-02 tracks the documentation gap with an expiry; No expansion of corpus without a new review
Linked records: UC-003; UC-007; PIL-002; PIL-003; TL-02; EXC-02
Review on: 02 Oct 2026

DEC-2026-04

Automated resume screening and candidate ranking

ID: DEC-2026-04
Date: 18 May 2026
Topic: Automated resume screening and candidate ranking
Forum: AI Governance Committee
Decision owner: Grace Lin, People & Culture Director, with Risk, Legal & Privacy concurrence
Decision: Not approved as proposed. Automated screening, scoring, ranking, and shortlist generation are declined for the current recruiting cycle.
Rationale: The vendor could not produce adverse-impact testing documentation, and the firm has no internal capability to validate the model's effect on protected groups. Without that, a ranked shortlist would shape employment outcomes on reasoning nobody in the firm can explain.
Alternatives considered and rejected: Approve with human review of the ranked list — rejected; reviewing a ranking still inherits the ranking; Approve for a single office as a test — rejected; the harm and the evidence gap do not shrink with scope; Defer entirely — rejected in favor of separating the logistics problem, which is real and solvable
Conditions: Reconsideration requires vendor adverse-impact documentation and a defined validation approach; People & Culture owns any future reconsideration, not the program
Linked records: UC-004; TL-04
Review on: 01 Feb 2027

DEC-2026-05

Recruiting coordination support, reduced scope

ID: DEC-2026-05
Date: 18 May 2026
Topic: Recruiting coordination support, reduced scope
Forum: AI Governance Committee
Decision owner: Grace Lin, People & Culture Director
Decision: Approved a 90-day limited pilot for scheduling coordination and structured interview note capture, with no scoring, ranking, or resume processing.
Rationale: Most of the recruiters' lost time is scheduling, not evaluation. Removing evaluation from scope removes the consequential decision from the tool while still addressing the stated problem.
Alternatives considered and rejected: Decline the whole request — rejected; the scheduling burden is real and the risk profile changes completely without evaluation in scope; Include interview note summarization with candidate comparison — rejected; comparison is evaluation by another name
Conditions: Applicant privacy notice updated before first use; All recruiters and participating hiring managers trained before first use; Monthly slate-composition comparison reviewed by People & Culture and Risk; Immediate stop if scoring capability appears in a vendor release
Linked records: UC-004; PIL-004; TL-04
Review on: 08 Dec 2026

DEC-2026-06

Invoice coding pilot pause

ID: DEC-2026-06
Date: 24 Jul 2026
Topic: Invoice coding pilot pause
Forum: Risk review, escalated from weekly triage
Decision owner: Elena Ward, Risk, Legal & Privacy Counsel
Decision: Pilot paused. The tool may not process production invoice data until a data-processing agreement naming subprocessors is executed.
Rationale: The tool would write to the financial system of record using confidential vendor and project data, and the firm cannot presently identify every party that would process it.
Alternatives considered and rejected: Continue in production with sampled review — rejected; the gap is contractual, not operational; Cancel the evaluation — rejected; the underlying problem is real and the gap may be closable
Conditions: Test environment only during the pause; Resume criteria documented at the time of pause; Vendor checkpoint 2026-09-30; if unmet, recommend retiring the evaluation
Linked records: UC-006; PIL-005; TL-05
Review on: 30 Sep 2026

Blank template

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

ID and date

Sequential and dated.

Topic

The question that was actually decided.

Forum and decision owner

The authorized owner. Never the program manager alone.

Decision

Stated so someone can tell whether they are complying with it.

Rationale

The reasoning, including the fact that settled it.

Alternatives considered

What was rejected and why. The most-skipped and most-valuable field.

Conditionsoptional

Each one traceable to an owner and a date.

Linked records and review date

Decisions expire; put the date in.

Artifact details