Editorial note: This article is a fictional reconstruction of situations businesses may face. Its purpose is to inform and raise awareness about possible risks and responses. People, events, data and outcomes should not be interpreted as actual cases, verified facts or results achieved by LC. Each organization needs its own assessment.
Nora is asked to upload customer contracts to an AI tool to extract obligations. The test might save time, but the files contain personal data, prices and confidential terms. Before choosing a platform, Nora separates the task from the material: could the value be tested with fictional or redacted documents?
Classify before copying and pasting
The team identifies public, internal, confidential and personal information. It reviews agreements and privacy notices to understand what may be shared with vendors. Labels do not replace legal review where regulated data is involved. The pilot removes real names and figures and stays within an approved environment.
Ask what the vendor does with content
Nora asks about retention, access, processing location and deletion. Terms differ by service and plan; she does not infer them from a demo. The team also defines authorized users, who approves uploads and which outputs may leave the tool.
Keep review and a traceable process
AI may flag a clause, but a person verifies the source text and meaning before acting. Nora documents the tested use, mistakes and decision to continue or stop. The resulting policy does not ban experimentation; it lets the team learn without accidentally turning sensitive information into test material.
Test the use case with safe data and assess the vendor before using real information.
BRING IT TO YOUR BUSINESS
Three questions to get started.
- What information is in the file?
- What are the vendor's terms?
- Who validates the answer?
Does this sound like a challenge in your business? We can start with a conversation.
Talk to LC↗