ai-adoption · deliverable

Governance Basics — employee-facing AI guardrails (AVG/GDPR-aware)

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.


1. Data classification — the traffic-light table for AI-tool use

LightWhat it coversAI-tool ruleExamples
GreenPublic info · anonymized/aggregated content · generic draftingGo — use external tools; human still checks facts before sendPublic regulations, formatting help, “write a meeting agenda”, anonymized process descriptions
YellowInternal but non-personal, non-sensitive business contentGo with care — approved internal/approved-external tools only; strip anything identifyingDraft internal memos, non-confidential vendor terms, shift-log structures without names
RedPersonal data · special-category data · confidential businessStop — never into external AI tools, no exceptions without written sign-offCustomer 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.

2. The disclosure norm

“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.

3. When to escalate — and who owns exceptions

SituationDo thisOwner
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 itDon’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 reasonRequest 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 deliverableAnswer 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 dataSay 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.

4. Quarterly refresh (keeps this page alive)


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.

Designed & built by I Wayan Usada