Skip to content

Back to the artifact library

Sheet 07 · ART-06

Responsible-use review checklist

The questions a reviewer works through, with the answers recorded. It exists so reviews are consistent between reviewers and legible to the requester afterward.

Artifact details

Format
Worksheet
Owner
AI Program Manager coordinates; each function answers its own section.
When it is used
During structured and elevated review; attached to the decision record.
Retention
Attached to the decision record.

Contributors: Information Security, Risk, Legal & Privacy, Data & Reporting, People & Culture

Downloads

The blank template is a standalone worksheet with every field and its guidance, ready to fill in or print. 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-06, with the guidance given to whoever fills them in.
FieldGuidanceRequired
Problem and alternativesIs AI the right response, or would a process fix work?Required
DataWhat goes in, where it is processed, who else can see it, how long it is kept.Required
Output and consequenceWho is affected if it is wrong, and how would anyone find out?Required
Human oversightNamed role, specific check, defined frequency, authority to override.Required
Fairness and affected groupsOnly where people are affected. What evidence exists, and who validated it?Optional
TransparencyDo the people affected know, and does the firm need to say so?Required
Failure and reversalWhat happens when it is wrong, and what is the undo path?Required
Ongoing monitoringWhat is watched, by whom, how often, and what triggers a stop.Required

Worked example

Filled in against the sample record set, so the template can be judged on what a real entry looks like rather than on its headings.

UC-004 — Recruiting screening, review record

  • Problem and alternatives: capacity constraint is real. Two distinct activities are consuming it — evaluation and coordination. Coordination is the larger share and carries far less risk. Recorded as the key finding.
  • Data: applicant resumes, contact details, interview notes. Restricted. Vendor default retention exceeds the firm's recruiting schedule — gap identified.
  • Output and consequence: a ranked shortlist would shape who gets interviewed. A candidate who is not advanced would have no explanation available.

Findings that decided it

  • Human oversight: reviewing a ranked list inherits the ranking. Reviewers rarely reorder a sorted list, so the proposed oversight would not have functioned as a control.
  • Fairness: vendor could not produce adverse-impact testing. Firm has no internal capability to validate independently. This was the finding that settled the question.
  • Transparency: applicant privacy notice does not cover automated processing.
  • Failure and reversal: no reversal path for a candidate screened out — they simply never hear back.

Outcome

  • Screening scope declined (DEC-2026-04). Reduced coordination scope approved with conditions (DEC-2026-05).
  • Reviewers: People & Culture, Risk, Information Security, two hiring managers, AI Governance Committee.

Blank template

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

Problem and alternatives

Is AI the right response, or would a process fix work?

Data

What goes in, where it is processed, who else can see it, how long it is kept.

Output and consequence

Who is affected if it is wrong, and how would anyone find out?

Human oversight

Named role, specific check, defined frequency, authority to override.

Fairness and affected groupsoptional

Only where people are affected. What evidence exists, and who validated it?

Transparency

Do the people affected know, and does the firm need to say so?

Failure and reversal

What happens when it is wrong, and what is the undo path?

Ongoing monitoring

What is watched, by whom, how often, and what triggers a stop.