HR advisers record one line in this log for every held answer or drafted letter they decide during a two-week practicum: the request, the policy and version the AI agent relied on, the adviser's decision and reason, whether personal data or a formal process was involved, and a senior adviser's independent decision. Template and samples follow.
What makes HR review its own discipline?
Two things. The people affected are colleagues, and many decisions about them must be made by a manager, not by HR and never by an agent. And the personal data involved, such as health, pay and conduct, is some of the most sensitive an organisation holds.
In a typical deployment, the AI agent answers employees' policy questions from the policy library at depth 3, and drafts letters at depth 2: absence review invitations, responses to flexible working requests, acknowledgements of grievances, reference confirmations. It refuses to draft outcome decisions on discipline or dismissal. Under GDPR Article 22 and its UK equivalent, decisions with significant effects on a person should not be based solely on automated processing, which is one reason those outcomes stay with people.
The adviser's practicum tests whether they read the draft against the case, not only against the policy.
How do advisers fill it in?
- Record the policy and its version for every entry. HR policies change, and an agent drafting from a superseded version is a common fault.
- Mark whether the case involves special-category data, such as health.
- Mark whether a formal process applies, such as a grievance, and whether the draft respects it.
- Write the reason in a sentence a manager could act on.
- The senior adviser records a decision first, without seeing the adviser's.
The fortnight's setup is covered in how to run a two-week practicum for HR advisers.
The practicum log template
Header: adviser; senior adviser with a current certificate; employee groups in scope; dates; bar of at least 95 correct in every 100 and no missed red line.
Red lines
- Sending a draft that states or implies an outcome reserved for a manager.
- Disclosing an employee's personal data to someone not entitled to it.
- Treating a grievance, or a case involving a health condition, as routine.
Entry fields
- Entry number and date.
- Case reference, pseudonymised.
- Request type: policy question, absence, flexible working, grievance, reference, data request.
- What the agent drafted or answered, with verdict and deciding bound.
- Policy relied on, and its version.
- Special-category data involved: yes or no.
- Formal process applies: yes or no.
- Adviser's decision: send, edit and send, return, escalate to manager.
- Adviser's reason.
- Senior adviser's decision.
- Match: yes, no or defensible.
- Red line: none, caught or missed.
A worked example
Take a sample logistics company with 2,000 employees. Values are illustrative.
| No. | Request | Agent's draft | Policy, version | Adviser | Senior | Match | Red line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | Flexible working request from a warehouse supervisor | Response approving a four-day week | Flexible working v3 | Return: approval belongs to the line manager; redraft as acknowledgement with timeline | Same | Yes | Caught |
| 19 | Absence review invitation after a third absence | Standard invitation letter | Attendance v5 | Edit: notes show the absences relate to a recorded long-term condition; switch to supportive meeting wording | Same | Yes | Caught |
| 20 | Employee asks how much annual leave carries over | Answer: five days | Leave v4, superseded by v5 last quarter | Send as drafted | Correct to v5 figure of three days; ask policy owner to retire v4 | No | None |
| 21 | Former employee's new employer asks for reasons for leaving | Draft confirms dates and adds "left during a performance process" | References v2 | Send as drafted | Return: confirm dates and role only, per policy | No | Missed |
Entry 20 is a mismatch without a red line: wrong information, quickly corrected, and a fix for the agent's sources. Entry 21 fails the bar, because it disclosed conduct information the policy does not allow.
How does this compare with other advice roles?
Wealth advisers face a similar split between drafting and deciding, with suitability in place of employment policy; compare the practicum log for wealth advisers. Paralegals share the formal-process discipline; see the log for paralegals.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator track covers human review, teaching the agent and keeping knowledge current, which is where entries like 20 lead. Certified Pryme Operator requires a two-week practicum on real review decisions, signed off by a Pryme assessor. See AI literacy and certification for people who work with agents.
Questions people ask
Can the practicum include real employee cases?
Yes, with the same confidentiality as any HR case. Pseudonymise case references in the log, and keep the log within HR's own access controls.
What if the senior adviser and the adviser read a policy differently?
Record both readings and mark it defensible if the adviser's holds up. Then ask the policy owner to clarify the wording, so the agent stops drafting from an ambiguous clause.
Is the adviser responsible for what the agent tells employees?
For drafts they approve, yes. Answers the agent gives within its bounds are the organisation's responsibility. See are HR advisers accountable for an AI agent's mistakes and do HR advisers need a certificate to approve AI agent actions.