The tool name is a useful starting point. It rarely describes the full employment decision.
Consider a fictional recruiting team using an application-ranking feature. A manager says the supplier has tested it. The team has not received the testing report and does not know whether the tested population resembles the applicants in this workflow.
A working record should make that gap visible. Describe the enabled feature and its role in the decision. Identify the people and locations affected, the internal owner and the evidence requested. Record the supplier’s response, what remains unanswered and the person responsible for the next review.
The record becomes more useful when it connects to a specific decision: whether to continue the use, limit it, ask for more evidence or pause it while the authorized team reviews an unresolved issue. A completed questionnaire is one input to that decision.
Keep the legal analysis tied to the actual location and use. A jurisdiction guide has a defined scope and review date. It should not be treated as an answer to every organization’s obligations.
For the next working session, select one enabled HR feature rather than an entire platform. Ask the owner to walk through a real decision from input to outcome. Identify where the AI output enters, who can question it and what evidence that person can inspect. Record the unanswered question before assigning the next action.
Source and further reading
This edition adapts the fictional vendor-evidence example and working-record approach in TalentSight Intelligence. The published collection describes the available records, selected jurisdiction guidance and access terms:
https://techne.ai/talentsight-intelligence/
For an Illinois employment use, read the maintained source and documentation guide, including its distinction between enacted duties and withdrawn procedural proposals:
https://techne.ai/insights/illinois-hb-3773-compliance-guide/