Practical AI Governance Pack — Sample
A public excerpt of the guide, one fictional review example and a complete prompt.
Open this self-contained file in a browser to read or print. Use the separate CSV files for editable worksheets.
A sample of the working approach
This public sample shows part of the Practical AI Governance Pack: a guidance excerpt, a fictional review example and one complete prompt. The full pack includes a substantial guide, six editable worksheet types with fictional examples, and twelve contextual prompts. This excerpt does not include the full worksheets or full prompt collection.
Draft guidance people can apply
The acceptable-use working-guidance sheet connects a role and task with permitted inputs, permitted actions, checks, prohibited activity and an escalation route. Draft examples in the language people use at work. “Use approved information” becomes more useful when the guidance names the approved collection, the access route and the owner who can answer questions.
Keep draft guidance visibly separate from approved instructions. Legal and privacy owners determine applicable obligations; security and technology owners establish their requirements and controls. Business and governance owners approve the resulting working arrangement. A prompt may expose a missing question, but it cannot declare a use compliant or decide that a specialist review is unnecessary.
Test the draft with an ordinary case and a difficult one. Ask a colleague to explain what they would do when the input is incomplete, the answer lacks a source, or the output contradicts an approved instruction. Revise wording that leaves the next action unclear. Make the current approved version easy for the intended users to find.
Fictional review example
A fictional internal IT assistant is proposed to draft support answers from selected articles. It would not send messages, change access or retrieve employee case histories. The service adviser would compare each draft with its cited current article and handle an uncertain answer manually.
Source permissions and technical restrictions remain unverified. The review record therefore keeps the next decision pending, with questions assigned to information and systems owners. A convincing demonstration does not fill those evidence gaps. This example is a planning scenario, not a client result or an approved deployment.
Try one prompt: separate assistance from action
Approved inputs: a workflow description, proposed system capabilities, actions, exclusions and evidence references. Use only material permitted for your chosen AI tool.
Human review: workflow and technical owners confirm actual capabilities and retained decisions. Relevant specialist owners determine which further reviews are required. A generated table is a draft, not an authorisation.
Next step
Explore the full Practical AI Governance Pack or discuss governance advisory. Full-pack availability and purchasing arrangements are shown on the resource page.