Blue Sage Data Systems
For Lincoln mid-market leaders

How to write an AI use policy that holds up

A step-by-step approach for mid-market companies that don't have a policy yet, or have one that isn't working. Designed for fast review by Legal, Security, and HR.

Omaha companies asking the same? See the Omaha view →

Text Rosey · Schedule a call →

Definition

Drafting an AI use policy that actually holds up follows a specific sequence. Writing the prose first and figuring out the approved tool list later is exactly how policies become out of date the moment they ship.

**Step 1.** Inventory current AI use. Survey staff anonymously. Map answers to (tool, role, data type). You'll find more shadow AI than expected — Express-Harris 2026 found 38% of companies allow employees to use any AI tools they're familiar with.

**Step 2.** Identify applicable regulators. NAIC + Nebraska IGD-H1 if you write insurance. OCC 2023-17 / FDIC FIL-29-2023 if you bank. HIPAA Security Rule + Section 1557 if you touch PHI. NITC 8-609 if you contract with the State of Nebraska — common for Lincoln-based firms. Pull each rule's actual text.

**Step 3.** Build the approved tool list jointly with IT and Security. Per tool: data residency, retention, training-data opt-out, enterprise tier, BAA status, SOC 2 / SOC 1 reports.

**Step 4.** Define prohibited data. PII / PHI / attorney-client / source code / donor records / regulator-flagged categories. Be specific.

**Step 5.** Define human-in-the-loop requirements per workflow. Customer-facing output? HITL. Consequential decisions (hiring, lending, claims)? HITL plus bias-mitigation per Section 1557.

**Step 6.** Define escalation. Single named role, single channel, response SLA.

**Step 7.** Attestation + training. Policy without attestation isn't a policy.

**Step 8.** Review cadence. Quarterly minimum, specific calendar dates, a named owner.

Common follow-up questions

How long does drafting take?
About 4–6 weeks of working sessions, plus 2–3 weeks of Legal and Security review. Faster is possible with a tight scope; slower is wise if you operate in multiple regulated industries.
Can we just adopt a template and call it done?
Templates are useful for sequence and section structure. They cannot make organization-specific calls. Plan to use a template for ~30% of the work and your own judgment for the rest.
What if our Legal team doesn't have AI experience?
Most don't yet. Co-drafting works: Legal owns regulatory mapping, you bring AI-specific expertise on operational sections.
Should the board approve the policy?
Yes — board adoption signals that AI use is a governance matter, not an IT matter. For insurers under IGD-H1, board oversight of the AIS Program is implicit in the bulletin's governance requirement.
How do we test that it actually works?
Spot-check recent AI-touched work for HITL compliance. Run a quarterly anonymous survey on policy clarity. Track incident reports — zero usually means people aren't reporting; 1–3 minor incidents per quarter is healthy.

Sources

Related

→ Start here

Text Rosey to begin.

Rosey is our executive-assistant bot. Text the number below — she'll ask two questions, offer three calendar slots, and put a 30-minute call on Jim's calendar.

Text Rosey · Schedule a call →

or call 415 481 2629