Rafał Mokrowiecki · mokrowiecki.pl
AI use case assessment record v1.0 · Resource prepared: 2026-11-01 · Blank template
A working decision record for a single use case. Complete it with the process owner, IT and relevant control functions. No automatic score or approval is generated.
An empty field is an evidence gap. Do not interpret it as zero cost or zero risk.
Save the HTML file to your computer and open it in a browser. Answers are not sent or automatically saved. Use “Save completed copy”, check that the downloaded copy reopens with your answers, and store it under your organisation’s rules. Print / Save as PDF uses the browser dialogue. Without JavaScript, use the Markdown version for editing.
Save completed copy Print / Save as PDF
Context and accountability Company, use case, record versionEnter your company name. Assign a use case ID and document version. — Accountable peopleProcess and decision owners; quality reviewer; IT; security and other required functions. Name who accepts risk. — Problem and boundariesWhich activity should change, for whom, at what volume and with what effect? What is out of scope? Also consider a non-AI alternative. — Baseline before the trial BaselineData source, dates, case count, sample selection, task difficulty, current end-to-end time, quality and spread. State gaps explicitly. — Criteria agreed before testingMeasure, unit, denominator, target and stopping threshold; who assesses? Define a serious error. Missing evidence leaves a decision open, rather than implying zero errors. — Data and controlled workflow Permitted data and toolData categories, sources, permissions, approved environment and version, retention, supplier access and required approvals. Do not enter secrets or customer data in this record. — Verification, exceptions and fallbackWho checks outputs before use, and how? When does a person take over? How are errors reported, use stopped and the previous process restored? — Trial plan and staff preparation Plan and reproducibilityTrial period and size, representation of difficult cases, group comparability, instruction and model/source versions. Limits to generalisation. — Time, skills and supportPlanned trial time, task-based training, reviewer competence, support channel, reported concerns and manager actions. — Economics and results Cash expenditure and staff capacitySeparate one-off and recurring costs, period and currency, licences, implementation, data and support. Distinguish staff time from cash. Count verification included in task time only once. — Results and evidenceBefore/after figures, units, numerator/denominator, spread, serious errors, evidence source and deviations from plan. Separate observations, assumptions and gaps. — How will the benefit be realised?Will time released increase capacity, improve timeliness or reduce expenditure? Name an owner and mechanism; do not equate hours with cash. — Decision and ongoing accountability Decision and rationaleExpand / improve and retest / stop / insufficient evidence. Compare evidence with criteria; document accepted risks, conditions and scope. — Approval and next reviewWho decided and when? Who monitors outcomes? Review date or trigger, retest conditions and person responsible for stopping use. A file entry is not an electronic signature. — Independent template by Rafał Mokrowiecki. Use internally and adapt your company name and working details. Keep the attribution when redistributing the original resource. No claim of certification or full NIST compliance.
Framework reference: NIST AI RMF 1.0 (2023) . This resource is not an official NIST publication.
Article and current resource version