Review AI governance readiness before broader AI use makes the gaps harder to explain.
Use this kit when AI use has started or is being planned, but use cases, information boundaries, output use, human review, records, escalation, responsibility, and next actions are still not clear enough.
One worked pass, end to end
A 900-person manufacturer has let three business units use a generative AI assistant for internal drafting for about five months. Nothing has gone wrong. The AI adoption lead has been asked to present to the risk committee, and cannot currently say which uses were decided and which were simply not stopped.
This example is fictional. It does not describe a client, an engagement, or a real organization. The checklist rows, the review points, and the named outputs are taken from the kit as shipped; the answers and the findings are invented to show the shape of a completed pass.
Situation
The organization is not in trouble. It is in the more common position of having accumulated practice faster than decisions, and needing to say which is which before the next expansion. That is the state this kit is built for — not an incident, and not a greenfield policy exercise.
The work
The workbook ships with the left three columns filled and the rest empty. The reader works down the rows marking current state, and the instruction that matters most is that Unknown is a permitted answer — the kit is designed to record what is not known rather than force a judgement to fill a cell.
| Check ItemIn the kit | Review PointIn the kit | Current StateYou fill in | PriorityYou fill in | Needed OutputIn the kit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded use cases are defined | Are areas where AI should not be used at this stage clearly identified? | Not addressed | High | AI Use Policy |
| Personal and customer-identifiable information handling is defined | Are conditions for providing personal information or customer-identifiable information to AI systems defined? | Partly — one unit has a rule, the others do not | High | Information & Data Boundary Table |
| Final decision owner is clear when AI is used | Is it clear who accepts final responsibility when humans decide based on AI output? | Unknown | High | Review, Responsibility & Evidence Design |
| Review levels differ between low-risk and high-risk use | Is review risk-based rather than uniform across all uses? | Not addressed — review is uniform | Medium | Control & Feedback Operations Plan |
4 of 57 rows. Current State and Priority ship empty; they are what the organization fills in.
Findings
Read down, the marked rows stop being a list of gaps and start being one question repeated in four places. Two of the four rows above resolve to the same missing decision; a third is a genuine unknown that no one in the room can answer, which is itself the finding.
Output
The kit's first template collects the marked rows into a small number of named issues, each carrying the decision it needs and the artifact that decision would produce. Five issues is the shipped shape of the sheet; the point is that the number is small enough to take to a committee.
Output
Priority Issue Map
Turn marked rows into named issues, each with its current state, target state, gap, the decision needed, and the output that decision produces.
Priority Issue 1 — Scope of AI use has never been bounded in writing Current state: three units in use, two with no recorded decision Gap: excluded uses are undefined; the boundary exists only as practice Decision needed: which uses are out of scope at this stage, and who says so Needed Output: AI Use Policy Priority Issue 2 — Responsibility for AI-supported decisions is unassigned Current state: Unknown — no one present could name the owner Decision needed: who accepts final responsibility, per use class Needed Output: Review, Responsibility & Evidence Design
What becomes possible
The second template converts issues into actions. This is where the pass stops being a review and becomes something the committee can be shown: not a maturity rating, but a named person, a date, and the specific artifact that will exist when the action is done.
Output
Next Action Plan
Convert each priority issue into an owned, dated action with the check that closes it and the output it produces.
Next Action 1 — Draft the out-of-scope list and take it to the risk committee Owner: AI adoption lead Due: 30 days Priority: High Required check: confirmed with each of the three units before submission Output: AI Use Policy (draft) Next Action 2 — Name a final decision owner for each use class Owner: Head of the using division Due: 45 days Priority: High Required check: the named owner has accepted in writing Output: Review, Responsibility & Evidence Design (section 1)
Four of the 57 rows are shown. The kit's value is the other 53 and the two templates that turn any set of answers into these outputs — this page shows the mechanism, not the material.
What this helps clarify
Use the product to apply a structure to one real situation and leave behind material that can be reviewed, shared, or carried forward.
Use this product to
Identify what is decided, unresolved, and unverified across AI use cases, information boundaries, human review, responsibility, and evidence, then turn the findings into a priority issue map and next-action plan.
Use this product to
Turn unclear AI governance questions into reviewable working material before policy drafting, control design, stakeholder approval, or broader rollout.
Use this product to
When AI use expands before use cases, information boundaries, review, evidence, and responsibility are clear, governance becomes harder to explain later.
Included files
The product includes guides, templates, checklists, and examples designed to be copied into your own workspace.
What you get
Bilingual PDF guidance for choosing a review scope, using the checklist, identifying priority issues, and moving from findings to next actions.
What you get
A styled bilingual spreadsheet workbook covering 57 questions across use context, information boundaries, risk, human-AI decision allocation, review, responsibility, evidence, feedback, communication, and roadmap planning.
What you get
A standalone template for turning checklist findings into priority issues, target states, gaps, decisions needed, outputs, and open questions.
What you get
A standalone template for sequencing immediate, short-term, and mid-term actions, stakeholder checks, deferred items, and management explanation points.
What you get
Markdown and YAML source files for internal reference and adaptation, alongside the customer-ready PDF and spreadsheet files.
Fit and boundary
This section helps confirm whether the product can be used internally, or whether context-specific advisory support may be more appropriate.
Good fit
Best for an AI adoption lead or project owner coordinating input from information systems, security, risk, legal, compliance, and business owners before policy, control, stakeholder, or rollout decisions.
Good fit
Useful when AI use is already happening or being considered, but use scope, information handling, review, responsibility, evidence, escalation, and operating conditions are not yet structured.
Good fit
A fit when the team needs to organize readiness questions before drafting policy, selecting tools, designing controls, or asking stakeholders to approve next steps.
What this is not
The kit supports readiness review and initial structuring. It does not replace a full governance program, formal policy, control design, audit work, or implementation.
What this is not
The kit helps identify governance questions and readiness gaps. It does not provide legal opinions, regulatory conclusions, audit assurance, or certification.
What this is not
The kit does not assess technical architecture, AI-agent completion and independent acceptance, implementation quality, operational assurance, or overall AI maturity, and it is not a tool-selection guide.
How to use this kit
The kit works well as a self-service tool. If interpretation, cross-functional alignment, or evidence checks would help, a facilitated review is another option. Neither path is the correct one — it depends on the situation.
Ask about a facilitated reviewHow to use this kit
Work through the checklist on your own, identify unresolved and unverified items, and turn the findings into a Priority Issue Map and Next Action Plan.
How to use this kit
When answers differ across departments or priorities are hard to decide, a facilitated review with Fragment Practice can help interpret findings and work through one real use case together.
Start using it
Start with one current situation, then use the files to clarify the issue, record what matters, and decide what to do next.
How to start
Pick one real or proposed use case and review the information used, output purpose, human review, responsibility, risk, evidence, and monitoring needs.
How to start
Use the checklist to identify where the organization actually lacks clarity before broad rules are drafted.
How to start
Map the highest-priority issues and decide what needs clarification, ownership, review, escalation, or follow-up first.
Reasoning
These notes are free to read and complete on their own. They explain the problem the kit is built around; the kit is what you use to work through it on your own situation.
AI governance should not be treated as a fixed policy document. As AI products, usage patterns, and organizational conditions change, organizations need a review cycle that updates decision criteria, review points, responsibility boundaries, and handoff material.
AI makes it easier to generate outputs, but outputs alone do not become organizational capability. This Practice Note explores how AI adoption can leave behind decision material, review points, responsibility boundaries, and reusable knowledge.
AI use case lists are not enough to decide what should move forward. This Practice Note explores how to turn use cases into decision material by clarifying context, input, output use, review responsibility, controls, and handoff points.
Notes
Check format, delivery, and purchase-related notes before using the product.
Product details
Format
Purchase notes
Next step
Start with this product when reusable structure is enough. If the review reveals unclear ownership, stakeholder conflict, high-risk use cases, review design, or management-facing decisions, Services or Contact may be the better next layer.
