Audience: every Helios employee using AI tools · Length: one page on purpose · Rule of thumb: when in doubt, it’s red — and you ask.
These guardrails exist so that “use AI at your desk” never becomes “explain yourself to the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens.” They are written for employees, not lawyers: short, concrete, and enforceable by common sense.
| Light | What it covers | AI-tool rule | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green | Public info · anonymized/aggregated content · generic drafting | Go — use external tools; human still checks facts before send | Public regulations, formatting help, “write a meeting agenda”, anonymized process descriptions |
| Yellow | Internal but non-personal, non-sensitive business content | Go with care — approved internal/approved-external tools only; strip anything identifying | Draft internal memos, non-confidential vendor terms, shift-log structures without names |
| Red | Personal data · special-category data · confidential business | Stop — never into external AI tools, no exceptions without written sign-off | Customer PII, employee sickness/performance/case details, unreleased financials, bids, credentials |
The two-second test: if the content contains a person who can be identified, or a number someone would panic about seeing published — it’s red. Uncertainty resolves upward: treat as red and ask.
“Client-facing text drafted with AI gets a human name on it. Always.”
Why this norm carries the whole program: trust in AI adoption dies the day a client receives a confident wrong sentence with our name under it. The name-on-it rule makes ownership visible and keeps the checking habit alive.
| Situation | Do this | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| You pasted red data into an external tool (even by accident) | Report same day to your AI champion + team lead. Same-day self-reporting = no personal consequences; it’s a fix, not a fault. | Champion logs it; DPO assesses within 2 working days |
| A tool output looks wrong but you can’t prove it | Don’t send. Flag to champion; if client-facing, hold the deliverable and say so — a late deliverable beats a wrong one. | Team lead decides hold/send |
| You need red/yellow data processed by AI for a real business reason | Request an exception before doing it: business need + data scope + tool + safeguards, in writing. | DPO owns exceptions; team lead countersigns. No verbal exceptions. |
| A client asks whether AI was used on their deliverable | Answer honestly per the disclosure norm; if unsure of wording, route to comms/team lead. | Team lead / comms |
| You see a colleague about to paste red data | Say something, kindly, now. “Hey — is that anonymized?” is a complete intervention. | Everyone owns this one |
Exception principle: exceptions are written, scoped, and time-boxed. An exception that becomes “how we do it now” is a policy change — and policy changes go through the DPO and the quarterly review, not through habit.
Fictional disclosure: Helios Facilities Group is a fictional client for this portfolio; thresholds reflect common EU practice. Guardrails drafted with AI assistance; final judgment and copy are human-owned. This is a portfolio artifact, not legal advice.
Prefer the source? Download the raw markdown.