Plain rules employees can follow
Focus on approved tools, data handling, prohibited uses, and human review instead of abstract AI ethics language.
Internal AI governance
AI Policy Generator
Draft an internal AI acceptable use policy that employees can actually follow. Set approved tool scope, data rules, allowed uses, human review, incident routing, and EU AI Act notes.
Connect policy to evidence
Use the policy alongside inventory, vendor review, disclosure notices, and literacy records.
Copy, print, or download
Create a draft for review by legal, security, HR, product, or compliance owners.
Disclaimer: This policy draft is a starting point for internal review and does not provide legal advice.
practical AI compliance self-assessment
Practical notes for AI Policy Generator
AI Policy Generator | AI Compliance Kit is maintained for founders, product managers, compliance owners, agencies, and small teams building AI workflows who need AI governance workflow. The goal is to help visitors complete a real task and leave with an AI inventory, risk note, disclosure draft, vendor question set, policy outline, or review workflow report, not only read a generic summary.
Define the system
Start by naming the AI feature, users, decision impact, data categories, vendors, and the team member responsible for maintaining the review record.
Separate triage from advice
Use the generated output as first-pass operational triage. Legal, medical, hiring, credit, education, biometric, and public-sector uses still need specialist review.
Keep evidence
Save the output, assumptions, date, source links, and reviewer notes so the team can explain why a risk level, disclosure, or vendor question set was chosen.
Before relying on this page
- Review high-impact use cases manually.
- Keep policies and disclosures aligned with the real product behavior.
- Re-run the workflow when vendors, data, or user impact changes.
Review record
How to use AI Policy Generator in an AI compliance file
A compliance tool is useful when it leaves a traceable record. The output should name the AI system, explain the assumptions, and show what the team still needs to verify with product, legal, security, or vendor owners.
Describe the real system
Record the feature name, user group, decision impact, data sources, vendor dependencies, and the human owner. A generic "chatbot" label is rarely enough. A hiring assistant, support summarizer, medical triage bot, and product recommender can have very different risk profiles even if they all use language models.
Separate signal from conclusion
Treat this page as first-pass triage. It can flag high-risk areas, transparency duties, missing evidence, and questions to ask a vendor. It should not be treated as legal approval, clinical advice, hiring approval, credit approval, or permission to launch without human review.
Save evidence and changes
Save the generated result with the date, reviewer, source links, and unresolved questions. Update the record when the model, data, users, product flow, vendor, or region changes. This keeps the site useful for actual operators rather than only being a static explanation page.
Evidence checklist
- Document what the AI system does and what it does not do.
- Record whether the system influences employment, education, credit, public benefits, healthcare, biometric identification, safety, or other high-impact outcomes.
- Keep vendor documentation, model notes, data descriptions, user notices, human oversight notes, and monitoring plans together.
- Re-run the review when the product behavior changes, not only when the law changes.
- Use specialist review for high-impact or regulated workflows before relying on any generated text.