Guided Intake
Organize the inputs for policy-aware triage of a sensitive request before drafting begins.
What this organizes
For security teams, IT leaders, operations owners, and compliance managers, guided intake works best when the desired decision is written before the AI guide starts organizing material. State the requested change, its business purpose, the affected resource, and who is asking before evaluating urgency. AI First Gatekeeper treats the working result as a request evidence packet, policy match, risk notes, approval record, and reversible action plan, not as proof that an external action has happened. The source set for this step is limited to the request purpose, permissioned context, relevant policy, source provenance, affected entitlement, and named approver. For a sensitive-request review, that limit makes review practical: a responsible person can identify what supports the draft, correct a misunderstanding, and see what is still unknown. For a sensitive-request review, the immediate next step is to name one outcome and the person who will review it.
For a sensitive-request review, how review stays visible
For a sensitive-request review, the first safeguard in guided intake is a visible boundary. Retrieve only context that the review is permitted to use; convenient access is not the same as authorized access. The AI prepares an allow, narrow, hold, or deny recommendation; an authorized person decides. Grants and revocations require human approval and verified connectors, and a missing source or approver moves the request to hold. For a sensitive-request review, the on-page guide identifies itself as AI and can explain the proposed sequence, but it does not replace the person accountable for the decision. For a sensitive-request review, write the boundary beside the task before collecting more context. For a sensitive-request review, this prevents a polished draft from quietly gaining authority, and it gives every reviewer the same standard for deciding whether the work may continue, needs narrowing, or should stop.
What happens next
For a sensitive-request review, good preparation for guided intake uses a small, traceable evidence set. Attach source identity and provenance so the reviewer can distinguish current evidence from an unsupported assertion. Begin with the request purpose, permissioned context, relevant policy, source provenance, affected entitlement, and named approver; label ownership, purpose, revision, and access scope where those details matter. For a sensitive-request review, do not add unrelated records merely because they are available. For a sensitive-request review, when a required fact is absent, the AI guide should ask a question and leave the gap visible rather than create a plausible answer. For a sensitive-request review, a reviewer should be able to move from each important statement back to its supporting source and understand why it belongs in this specific workflow.