An impressive AI demonstration would earn my attention, but approval would require evidence that we can depend on a defined capability when information is incomplete or wrong. I would connect three questions: what authority am I granting, what justifies it, and how can we change course?
Start with a bounded task
I would specify the user, necessary information, intended output and consequence of error before comparing products. Drafting a support summary is a task we can examine; helping everyone with AI is not. Suggesting a reply, retrieving records and sending a message grant different powers. Each expansion needs its own justification.
I would compare the proposed workflow with the existing process, including checking, correction and maintenance. A quick draft can create more work when its claims are difficult to verify.
Make approval conditional
My framework has three gates: a defensible purpose, controllable exposure and sustainable operation. These require a worthwhile benefit with an owner, limits on data and actions, and the ability to support, revise and leave the service. Strength at one gate cannot compensate for failure at another.
Test evidence and review together
I would plan a bounded evaluation before connecting systems, using authorized tasks, incomplete inputs and misuse cases. Sources must support the actual conclusion, not merely appear as links. Sometimes the correct response is a question or a refusal to conclude. Reviewers need accessible evidence and authority to stop an action.
Imagine an invoice assistant explaining a discrepancy through an old purchase order and a recent email. Its polished account could conceal that the order covers another service period. I would test whether the reviewer can see that mismatch and whether approval waits for the check. A review checkbox alone cannot protect the workflow.
Examine the data bargain
I would establish where prompts, files, outputs and logs go, who can access them, their permitted uses and what happens at termination. Ownership does not guarantee export, deletion or control over model improvement. Connected searches must respect permissions; hostile instructions inside documents must not gain authority to send information elsewhere.
Logs help investigate errors but can expose confidential material. I would retain what the purpose requires, restrict access and account for the effort of operating those controls.
Preserve the ability to leave
I would name an accountable owner, agree on incident support and define which service changes trigger reassessment. I would also test an export that preserves sources, review decisions and their relationships, so another person can understand the history outside the product.
My approval would state the task, limits, evidence and exit route. Responsible buying means knowing what would make me withdraw permission and ensuring the team can act before dependence makes that choice impractical.