Fictional sample · not a real certification
Example A — meets EAUS 1.0
- Applicant
- Northfield Advisory Group (fictional)
- Reference
- SAMPLE-A (not a certificate number)
- Assessed standard
- EAUS 1.0 — Ethicality AI Use Standard
- Scope
- Use of AI tools by all eight staff in client research, drafting and internal email.
- Profile
- Eight-person management consulting firm. Uses ChatGPT Team for drafting and Copilot in Outlook for email summaries. No chatbots, no AI in decisions about people.
- Named reviewer
- Certification officer (fictional example)
Evidence reviewed
- Policy area: one-page AI Use Policy, adopted and shared with all staff
- Transparency area: engagement-letter clause and website AI-use statement
- Oversight area: partner sign-off step recorded on two sample deliverables
- Short AI-use list: two tools, both rated Moderate
Findings
Simple rules and confidential information
| R1 | The organization has simple written rules for AI use that employees who use AI can access.Evidence: AI Use Policy, version dated and shared on the staff drive | Met |
| R2 | Employees are told that confidential, privileged or sensitive business information must not be entered into public or unapproved AI tools.Evidence: Policy section 2; staff acknowledgement emails | Met |
| R3 | Passwords, security credentials and similarly sensitive access information are never entered into public or unapproved AI tools.Evidence: Policy section 2 names credentials explicitly | Met |
| R4 | Employees know which AI tools they are permitted to use for work.Evidence: Approved-tools list in the policy and the AI-use list | Met |
| R15 | Employees who use AI know the basic disclosure, confidentiality and human-review rules and know who to ask if they are unsure.Evidence: Staff acknowledgement emails; named contact for questions | Met |
Openness about AI use
| R5 | The organization is open with clients or customers about meaningful AI use in its work.Evidence: Website AI-use statement | Met |
| R6 | When AI substantially contributes to client-facing work, the organization discloses that use where a reasonable client would expect to know.Evidence: Engagement-letter clause on AI-assisted drafting | Met |
| R7 | People are told when they are directly interacting with an AI system, chatbot or agent rather than a person.Evidence: Application and AI-use listNote: No chatbot or AI agent talks to clients. Justification accepted. | Not Applicable (justification accepted) |
| R8 | If AI plays a meaningful role in a consequential decision about a person, that person is told that AI was involved.Evidence: Application screening answersNote: AI plays no part in decisions about people. Justification accepted. | Not Applicable (justification accepted) |
| R9 | Public statements about the organization's use of AI are accurate and not misleading.Evidence: Website statement checked against the tools actually in use | Met |
Human responsibility
| R10 | Material AI-assisted work is reviewed by a person before it is sent, published or relied upon externally.Evidence: Partner sign-off recorded on sample deliverables | Met |
| R11 | Important recommendations, advice or decisions informed by AI receive appropriate human approval before action is taken.Evidence: Policy section 3; recommendation sign-off by a partner | Met |
| R12 | AI does not make final consequential decisions about people on its own.Evidence: Application screening answersNote: No consequential decisions about people. Justification accepted. | Not Applicable (justification accepted) |
| R13 | The person reviewing AI-assisted work has the authority to change, reject or disregard the AI output.Evidence: Policy section 3 states reviewers may reject AI output | Met |
| R14 | A person, not the AI system, remains responsible for the final work or decision.Evidence: Policy section 3; deliverables signed by a named partner | Met |
Decision
Certified (fictional)
All applicable requirements Met with proportionate evidence. Three requirements accepted as Not Applicable with recorded reasons.