AI-Assisted Writing Governance

AI Assistance Project Register

Maintain an accountable inventory of AI-assisted content projects, tools, data classes, owners, approved use cases, review status, incidents, and expiry.

Free editable Markdown · Content operations teams, AI governance teams, and compliance teams · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Register administration

Register owner: [Name/team]
Scope and registration threshold: [Define]
Status vocabulary: [Proposed / Assessing / Pilot / Active / Paused / Retired / Rejected]
Data classification vocabulary: [Define]
Access group: [Enter]
Review cadence: [Enter]
Retention and export process: [Enter]
Incident and discrepancy route: [Enter]

Project entry

Duplicate for each project.

Project ID and name: [Enter]
Business owner and operating team: [Enter]
AI-assisted task: [Describe narrowly]
Tool, service, feature, and account: [Enter]
Input data class: [Enter]
Output audience and consequence: [Enter]
Approved use-case card: [Reference/version]
Risk and vendor review: [References]
Required human review: [Who checks what]
Provenance and disclosure: [References/status]
Current status: [Choose]
Start, last review, and expiry: [Dates]

Monitoring and exception

Last sample checked: [Date/project evidence]
Workflow matches registered scope: [Yes / No / Partly]
Control failures: [List or None]
Incident references: [List or None]
Unapproved tool or data change: [Describe or None]
Remediation owner and due date: [Enter]
Decision: [Continue / Restrict / Pause / Retire / Reassess]
Decision approver: [Name/date]

Portfolio review

Shared control gap: [Describe]
Training or vendor priority: [Enter]
Next register review: [Date/owner]

Every active project has a current owner and approval.
Tool, plan, feature, and data class match the approved record.
Expired pilots are renewed, paused, or retired.
Open incidents and control failures have owners.
Retired guidance is not discoverable as current authorization.

How to use this template

Define the registration threshold, statuses, data classes, owners, access, and update cadence.
Assign stable IDs and link every project to its use-case, assessment, vendor, and control evidence.
Record task scope, tool, data, audience, human review, disclosure, status, and lifecycle dates.
Review exceptions and sample actual workflows against registered permissions and controls.
Close, renew, pause, or retire records and use aggregated gaps to improve governance.

Define what must be registered

Set a threshold that teams can apply consistently. Include production, pilot, and recurring content workflows where AI generates, transforms, classifies, summarizes, translates, or evaluates material. Decide how to handle incidental low-risk experiments and prohibited attempts without creating an incentive to hide them. Give each project a stable ID and connect it to the approved use case, risk assessment, vendor review, and accountable business owner. Registering “uses ChatGPT” is not enough; record the exact task, service or feature, data class, output audience, and human decision point.

Track state and evidence without centralizing sensitive content

Use references to controlled provenance, contracts, incidents, and approval records rather than pasting personal data, prompts, or confidential drafts into the register. Include active status, launch date, last review, expiry, reviewers, disclosure requirement, and monitoring result. Normalize tool and data names so the register can reveal reuse and concentration risk. Distinguish proposed, assessing, pilot, active, paused, retired, and rejected work. A cancelled project remains useful history, but mark it clearly so users do not mistake it for an active authorization.

Turn the inventory into governance action

Review the register for projects with expired approvals, unapproved tools, higher data classes than their use-case card permits, missing owners, unresolved incidents, or no evidence of human review. Send discrepancies to responsible owners and record closure. Use aggregated findings to prioritize vendor assessments, training, shared controls, and retirement work; do not use the register to imply that listed content is automatically safe or accurate. Define access, retention, exports, backup, and an owner for the register itself. Test a sample of live workflows against their records rather than relying only on self-reported status.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: product glossary pilot

WordRiver and its project are invented; this entry is not an authorization for any real service.

Project: REG-014, a fictional pilot generating glossary-definition alternatives from public product documentation.
Data and audience: Public inputs only; output remains internal until product and editorial review.
Status: Paused because the imaginary use-case card expired before expansion to another team.
Exception: One operator proposed customer ticket input, which exceeds the registered data class and was not submitted.
Next action: Reassess the new data need or preserve the public-only scope before renewing.

Frequently asked questions

Should every prompt be a separate register entry?

Usually no. Register the project or recurring use case and link detailed interactions to controlled provenance records.

Who should own a project entry?

A person or role with operational authority to maintain controls, answer questions, and pause the workflow—not only a central governance observer.

Can the register contain confidential prompts?

Avoid centralizing sensitive content. Use access-controlled references to the minimum evidence the register needs.

What is the value of retired entries?

They preserve decisions, incidents, tool history, and lessons, but must be clearly separated from active approvals.