Time needed
60 minutes · 8 steps
What it takes
Nothing to install
What it costs
A free path exists
Last checked
2026-09-01

The steps

Controlled route for sensitive material
  • Director or leadership
  • Grants and operations
  • Journalist or editor
  • Human rights activist
  • Protecting sensitive information
  • Grants and admin
  • Drafting reports and advocacy material
These are instructions, not case studies

A recipe tells you what to do. It is not a report of something that already happened somewhere else. Nothing here claims that any organisation did this. It is written for you to do now, and every step tells you how to check it worked.

What you will make

A one-page rule, an approved-tools register, an incident route, and a review date. Bring three to five staff members and the person who can approve the result. The workshop itself needs only paper or an existing word processor.

Sort work into three lanes

  • Public: already published and safe to share. Approved consumer tools may assist after the exact product and account are checked.
  • Internal: not public, but not likely to harm a person if exposed. Use an approved organisation account or verified local route.
  • Identifiable: information that could expose, locate, detain, dismiss, or otherwise harm a person. Use a verified local route or no AI.

The master policy can become identifiable once it names real projects, locations, and files. Keep that copy with the material it describes. A short wall copy should state the rules without listing the sensitive examples.

Workshop route

  1. Inventory current use without blame, using spoken answers or short anonymous notes.
  2. Put three real workflows into the lanes and decide the allowed route for each.
  3. Name the approver, deputy, incident contact, and maximum approval time.
  4. Sign the rule, brief the team, and set the next review date before leaving the room.

Use general workflow names in the inventory. Do not create an email thread naming which staff member sent which protected file to which service.

Five checks before you finish

  1. Data: staff can classify one realistic example into the correct lane.
  2. Tool: every approved entry names the exact product, plan, deployment, and account owner.
  3. Output: every workflow names the facts, figures, quotations, or decisions a person must check.
  4. Human: each approval and incident step names a person and a deputy.
  5. Record: the master, wall copy, incident log, and review date have safe storage locations.

Stop and get more help when

The rule cannot replace legal advice, consent, physical security, or a formal data protection assessment. If an incident may put a person at risk or trigger a legal duty, protect the person and seek trusted legal or security advice before making wider notifications.

What happens to your information

Never use this for

This one-page rule is not legal advice, consent, a data protection assessment or a device security plan.

What leaves your device

Whose law it lands under · The fully offline option

Nothing needs to leave the room. Do not collect staff disclosures in email or paste the detailed rule into a chatbot. The risk list and incident log may themselves identify people or projects.

Whose law it lands under

None for paper. A hosted tool later added to the approved list introduces the provider and account jurisdiction in its current terms.

The fully offline option

Paper is the simplest local option. A word processor is local only when file storage, collaboration, backups and the device are configured to remain local.

What it costs

Paying for this from Iraq

No payment is needed. For a later purchase, verify service availability and the actual payment route separately.

The free path

If you pay

The workshop needs paper, a pen and decision time. No AI account is required.

If you pay

USD 0 for the workshop. Check current vendor pricing only if the approved-tools decision creates a later purchase.

Before you start

  • The person who can approve the rule and one named deputy.
  • Two to four staff who handle programmes, sensitive records, reporting or operations.
  • Paper or an existing word processor and a secure place for the master copy.
  • A blame-aware discussion of current practice, held verbally or with temporary notes.

Which machines this works on

Use paper or an existing word processor on any platform. Store the detailed master with the same controls as sensitive records. A local-model brand does not prove a local route. Ollama can run local and cloud models, so check the model and repeat the test with the network disconnected.

The steps

  1. Step 1 / 8

    Open with the outcome: one approved page that staff can use under deadline pressure. Ask which AI tools and tasks are already in use, but collect answers verbally and do not name people or cases in shared notes.

    Check it worked

    The room has a factual tool-and-task list without creating a new record of who exposed what.

  2. Step 2 / 8

    Create three columns: PUBLIC, INTERNAL and IDENTIFIABLE. Put two real work examples in each. Treat voices and combinations of details as identifiable when they could reveal a person.

    Copy this exactly

    PUBLIC: deliberately published material
    INTERNAL: routine unpublished work
    IDENTIFIABLE: names, voices, locations, testimony, case details, or combinations that point to a person

    Check it worked

    A new colleague could place the three most common documents your team handles without guessing.

  3. Step 3 / 8

    Write one route for each lane. Public may use an approved hosted tool. Internal needs an organisation-approved account and storage route. Identifiable stays local, is minimised, or uses no AI.

    Check it worked

    Each lane names an allowed route and a prohibited route. No line says only that a brand is safe.

  4. Step 4 / 8

    Build the approved-tools table from current official terms. Record product, plan, workspace, permitted task, highest data lane, owner, settings checked, source and review date.

    Copy this exactly

    Tool | Plan and workspace | Permitted task | Highest data lane | Owner | Settings checked | Source | Review date

    Check it worked

    Every hosted entry identifies the exact account and plan. Every local entry has passed a network-off test. An Ollama model ending in -cloud is not recorded as local.

    Note

    A training control does not prove that content is not transmitted, stored, retained, reviewed or disclosed.

  5. Step 5 / 8

    Write the five checks staff must complete: data, input, output, human and record. Name the person who approves exceptions and one deputy.

    Check it worked

    Both people accept the role aloud, and the rule contains no owner called only management, IT or the team.

  6. Step 6 / 8

    Write a short incident route: stop, report, record the minimum facts, assess harm to people first, use current product controls, and correct the workflow. Support early reporting.

    Check it worked

    A staff member can say whom to contact today and where the restricted incident record belongs.

  7. Step 7 / 8

    Run a tabletop test using a synthetic witness note, an internal budget draft and a published report. Ask the group to choose the lane, route, reviewer and record.

    Check it worked

    The group reaches the written answer without inventing an exception. If not, revise the rule now.

  8. Step 8 / 8

    Approve the page, secure the detailed master, circulate a general staff copy, and schedule review after six months or sooner when a tool, law, funder rule or incident changes.

    Check it worked

    The master has an owner, deputy, adoption date, review date, storage location and calendar appointment.

How to know the whole thing worked

Ask someone who was not in the meeting to run the synthetic tabletop test. They should classify the material, choose the approved route, name the reviewer and know where to report a mistake.

What goes wrong, and what to do about it

  • The rule names brands but not product plans, workspaces or data lanes. Add the missing context.
  • The detailed risk list is displayed publicly. Replace it with general categories and secure the master.
  • A local tool is assumed private. Check model routing, sync, telemetry, storage and network-off operation.
  • No person owns exceptions or incidents. Assign an approver and deputy before adoption.

How well it works in your language

Arabic (Modern Standard) · Iraqi Arabic · Kurdish (Sorani)

Arabic (Modern Standard)

Write the operational rule in clear Modern Standard Arabic when that is the staff working language. Read it aloud before adoption.

Iraqi Arabic

Use Iraqi Arabic for the spoken briefing when it improves understanding, but keep one stable written master.

Kurdish (Sorani)

Have a fluent Sorani speaker draft or review the policy. Print one test page and check Kurdish letters and right-to-left order.

What that rests on

ARIJ provides an Arabic AI strategy for Arab newsrooms. NTEN and Community IT provide reusable English policy material. None replaces local legal or security advice.

Software named in this recipe

  • Paper or an existing word processor
  • ChatGPT
  • Claude
  • Google Gemini
  • Ollama

Sources

A CDR original, written for POINT Conference Iraq 7. Checked against vendor pages and package registries in August 2026; the sources are listed on this page.

What we could not verify

This workshop produces an operational first rule, not a complete governance programme. Product behaviour changes, local legal duties were not assessed here, and a written rule does not protect an unlocked or compromised device.

All recipes