AI Workflows · Guide
Create a Lightweight AI Decision Log for Repeatable Team Choices
Capture the question, evidence, choice, exclusions, owner, and review trigger so a team does not relitigate the same AI decision from memory.
An AI decision log is a short record of a consequential workflow or tool choice. It explains the context, options, evidence, decision, limits, owner, and review trigger. The log should help the next person understand and revisit the choice—not preserve every meeting note.
Log decisions that will return
Record choices that affect repeated work, data, cost, access, or public output: approving a model for a task, defining a human-review rule, selecting an extraction tool, or excluding confidential files. Do not log every prompt edit. The test is whether a colleague is likely to ask later, “Why did we choose this?”
Use a seven-part record
Write context, decision question, options considered, evidence, choice, consequences and exclusions, owner and review trigger. Keep the language direct. Link evaluation results and current provider documents rather than pasting them into the record. AWS describes decision records as a way to preserve choices and the history behind them; the same lightweight form works for AI workflows.
State non-decisions and limits
Say what the team did not approve. A tool may be permitted for public-source drafts but not customer files or autonomous actions. Record unresolved questions and who owns them. This prevents a narrow pilot from becoming a general endorsement through repetition.
Attach a review trigger
Use a date only when periodic review is useful. Also name events that reopen the decision: changed model, plan, data type, workflow, policy, error pattern, or accountable owner. Do not rewrite the old record to look timeless. Mark it superseded and link the new decision so the history remains understandable.
Review the log in the workflow
Link the active record beside the prompt, tool, or operating guide where people make the choice. A hidden register does not govern behavior. During review, ask whether practice still matches the permitted use and whether the evidence still supports it. Archive obsolete entries, keep current decisions short, and let the log reduce repeated meetings rather than create another reporting ritual.
Example: approve AI for first-pass alt text
The context is a small editorial team with many original illustrations. Options are manual drafting only, AI first draft with human review, or automatic publishing. Evidence from a limited sample shows that AI drafts often identify the main objects but miss why a diagram matters. The decision approves first drafts only, using public approved images, with an editor rewriting for context. Automatic publication and customer images are excluded. The content lead owns the workflow, and a changed tool or repeated context errors trigger review.
Keep evidence proportional
A low-risk reversible choice may need one paragraph and a link. A consequential decision may need evaluation results, provider documentation, and specialist approval. Do not turn the log into a substitute for the evidence, and do not demand a long record for every experiment. The length should reflect what the next owner needs to act safely. If evidence is missing, the record should say “not approved” or “pending,” not hide the gap behind polished rationale.
Use status without a complex system
Mark each entry proposed, accepted, superseded, or retired. Include the effective date and a link to any replacement. A Markdown file, issue, or shared table is sufficient if it is searchable and owned. Avoid a new database or approval platform until the volume proves that the simple method fails. The value comes from a durable explanation and visible boundary, not from workflow software.
Close with a clear consequence
End every accepted record with what changes now: which tool or workflow is permitted, who may use it, what review is required, and which previous practice stops. A decision that produces no operational change is probably a note, not a decision. Keep the consequence narrow enough that a colleague can follow it without interpreting a meeting transcript.
Review the portfolio, not only one entry
Once a month or quarter, scan active decisions for overlapping scopes, conflicting rules, missing owners, and overdue triggers. Two narrow approvals may accidentally combine into a use nobody evaluated. Retire a record when the workflow ends, and link a replacement when a new choice supersedes it. Keep the review brief and exception-focused. The purpose is to ensure that the current operating rules still form a coherent whole, not to rewrite every rationale on a schedule.
Make disagreement visible
If reviewers support different options, record the key disagreement and the evidence that would resolve it. The accountable owner can still make a bounded choice, but the log should not rewrite uncertainty as unanimous confidence. Add a condition for revisiting the minority concern, especially when it involves data, user harm, or an untested failure mode. This gives a future team a better starting point than a polished conclusion with the contested assumption removed.
Sources and update note
Follow the linked official source before a product, price, plan, or policy decision.