Sources checked: 7 September 2026
Why policy needs specifics
A blanket ban or a long list of principles leaves room for interpretation. Make the agreement concrete: which accounts may be used, which data must stay out of AI and who reviews a new application? This is our practical approach to governance, not a legally prescribed template.
Five agreements on one page
Describe permitted use, data boundaries, output review, the request process and incident reporting. Assign an owner to each agreement. Explain how people can get help when an approved tool does not fit. An agreement without a workable alternative makes everyday work unnecessarily difficult.
Example: replying to a customer
The employee drafts a response using fictional data in an approved environment. An authorised colleague checks facts, commitments and tone before it reaches the customer. If real case information is needed, that specific processing must first be assessed. The policy points to that route instead of leaving everyone to interpret supplier terms.
From draft to agreed practice
Ask the process owner, IT and privacy lead to review whether the rules are workable. Record who approves the document and which version applies. People need to find it and ask questions. An acknowledgement can record receipt, but says little by itself about understanding.
Maintaining the policy
A change in supplier, purpose or access is a reason to revisit the agreement. A regular review helps resolve open issues. The outcome may be an updated instruction or a reasoned decision to hold off using an application.
What you can use it for
A concise policy sheet with an owner, version, approval date and exception process.
This guide provides general information. Assessment of a specific application depends on your role, data and intended use.
Sources and further reading
This article was prepared with AI assistance and checked against our editorial and sourcing guidelines.