# Illustrative executive AI decision record
Theory Y Technologies Pty Ltd | Example only, not a client case study

## The question
Should a support team evaluate AI-assisted drafting from approved internal guidance?

## The boundary
Drafting assistance only. No autonomous external messages and no changes to systems of record.
A responsible person reviews sources and approves any final communication.

## What is known
For this hypothetical example, the workflow has a named operating owner and a proposed source collection.
These are scenario assumptions, not observed facts about an actual client.

## What is not yet known
Source coverage, performance on difficult cases, review effort and total operating cost remain unmeasured.

## Alternatives considered
Improve the guidance collection; implement ordinary search; clarify the workflow; evaluate AI-assisted drafting.

## Illustrative recommendation: investigate
Do not authorise implementation yet. First evaluate whether the proposal improves the current workflow without unacceptable quality or information-access risks.

## Next action
Agree representative test cases, access permissions, baseline measures, unacceptable outcomes and review criteria.
Assign the evaluation to a named person under an agreed scope.

## Stop conditions
Stop if approved information cannot be accessed safely, review effort removes the intended benefit, or the system cannot stay within its action boundary.

## Approval and reassessment
An authorised sponsor reviews the evidence before the next commitment.
Reassess when sources, permissions, models or the workflow change materially.

No quantified benefit is asserted. Actual engagement deliverables depend on the agreed scope.
Permission: internal use with attribution. Commercial republication requires written permission.
Contact: info@theory-y.com.au