People need a clear way to report AI behavior that appears unsafe, inappropriate, unreliable, discriminatory, insecure, privacy-invasive, or simply inconsistent with the approved use case. A structured intake path helps route those concerns without requiring the reporter to diagnose the cause.
Make reporting easy to find
Provide a known channel for staff and operators and, where appropriate, customers or affected users. Explain what kinds of events should be reported and how urgent safety or security concerns are escalated.
Capture facts before conclusions
Record the use case, date and time, observed behavior, expected behavior, affected process, available inputs and outputs, model or version where known, and immediate actions already taken. Preserve sensitive information carefully.
Route by impact
Operational failures may go to engineering or operations, security concerns to incident response, privacy issues to privacy owners, and consequential professional concerns to the relevant qualified authority. One intake process can support multiple response paths.
Connect incidents to governance
Use incident records to trigger model change reviews, risk reassessment, monitoring updates, temporary restrictions, or control improvements when warranted.
Do not force reporters to make regulated judgments
The intake form should capture observations, not require a reporter to determine legal liability, clinical harm, employment discrimination, financial suitability, or regulatory status.
Related knowledge
Use this with AI Monitoring Thresholds, AI Model Change Reviews, AI Risk Acceptance Records, and AI Governance Evidence Packs.
References
This resource supports operational governance. It does not determine legal, regulatory, clinical, financial, employment, safety, privacy, accessibility, or other professional outcomes.