Contractor AI governance defines the jobs AI may perform, the data it may access, the actions it may take and the people responsible for reviewing results. A written policy becomes useful when those limits are enforced in tools, approvals, tests and operating records.
Register specific uses rather than broad tool approval
For each use case, name the business purpose, users, vendor, connected systems, data categories and accountable owner. State permitted and forbidden actions. An assistant approved to draft public website copy does not automatically have permission to read employee files or change customer prices. Include a review date and a way to retire the use case. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework offers voluntary guidance organized around Govern, Map, Measure and Manage; it is a reference for risk work, not a certification.
Match controls to the consequence of error
Consider what happens if the output is wrong or reaches the wrong person. A draft caption and a revised contract price need different review. For an estimating assistant, allow a draft scope from approved notes while reserving quantities, exclusions, price and sending authority for designated staff. Identify affected customers, workers and counterparties. Record cases the system must decline or escalate. The point is to make the boundary operationally clear, not to assign a reassuring risk label without changing how the workflow behaves.
Limit data and connectors to the task
Review the actual vendor configuration, retention terms and access settings used by the business. Give the assistant only the records and permissions required for its approved job. A summarizer generally does not need permission to delete source documents or send messages. Keep credentials out of prompts and ordinary logs. Track changes to connected systems, because a new integration can expand exposure beyond the original review. Tool approval should describe a specific configuration and purpose rather than become permanent permission for every feature.
Put review before consequential action
Name the reviewer, evidence required and actions they may approve, reject or edit. Present the exact proposed output and destination before a customer message or record change occurs. Preserve the approved version and inspect the result after execution. If the reviewer is unavailable or the source evidence conflicts, the workflow should pause or follow a defined escalation. Calling a person “in the loop” does little when they can only see the result after the company has already made the commitment.
Test failures and own the shutdown process
Use representative cases with missing fields, stale prices, contradictory documents, duplicate events and malicious instructions embedded in source material. Record failures and retest repairs before widening access. Measure unsupported claims, review corrections, unauthorized action attempts and time to resolve incidents alongside any time saved. Give a named owner the ability to disable the workflow and revoke its connectors. Reassess after material vendor or process changes. Useful governance keeps responsibility visible throughout deployment, routine operation, incident response and eventual retirement of the system.
Keep building your understanding
Start with one useful workflow.
Tell us what happens today and where it gets stuck. We’ll help define a practical next step.