Triage Ten Claude Use Cases and Write the Team Policy That Follows
Take ten proposed uses of Claude from a real team, classify the data each one touches, and rule on every case as approved, approved with conditions, or not appropriate, with the reasoning tied to a named source. Includes redesigning one refused case into a version that clears the bar, and a one-page team policy somebody could actually follow. No coding required.
2.5 hrs
Est. time
5
Outcomes
8
Rubric criteria
65%
Pass score
What you'll learn
Skills you'll have real reps in after shipping this.
See how it works
Where sensitive material enters
Most governance failures happen at the moment data is pasted in rather than at the moment output leaves. Classifying what a use case touches before ruling on it puts the decision at the point where it can still be made.
The scenario
The question a team eventually asks is not whether to use Claude, it is which uses are fine and who decides. Left unanswered, the answer gets set by whoever is boldest. Somebody pastes a customer list into a chat to draft outreach copy, somebody else uses Claude to summarize a document they were not cleared to read, and somebody who had a genuinely useful and entirely appropriate idea holds back because there was no way to know it was allowed. All three outcomes come from the same missing artifact.
A usable policy starts from the data rather than from the tool. Classifying what a use case touches, whether that is public material, internal information, confidential business data, personal data about identifiable people, or regulated material in your sector, does most of the work of deciding. The rest comes from provider terms, your own organization's policies, and any regulation covering your industry. This task makes you run that triage on ten real proposals, refuse the ones that deserve refusing with specific reasoning, redesign one refusal into a version that clears the bar, and write the policy that lets the next person decide without asking you.
Your role
You are the person your colleagues ask whether something is allowed. Your deliverable is a triage register covering ten real proposals, a data classification scheme behind it, one refused case redesigned into an approvable form, and a one-page policy your team could adopt.
Start the task to unlock the full brief
You'll get the step-by-step requirements, setup commands, the 8-criterion grading rubric, tips, and the ability to submit your solution for instant AI grading.
Free to start · submit when you're ready
Learning resources
What you'll build in this responsible AI use task
This is a build-and-submit task rather than a guided lab, and it requires no coding. You define a data classification scheme in your own organization's language, then triage ten Claude use cases that are real for your team, classifying what each one touches before ruling on it as approved, approved with conditions, or not appropriate.
Every verdict has to cite something: provider terms, an organizational policy, a sector regulation, or a stated ethical principle. Reasoning that rests on instinct gets overruled by whoever sounds more certain, which is how these decisions end up being made badly. You refuse at least two cases with specific grounds, write at least two conditional approvals with conditions concrete enough for a colleague to check, then take one refusal and redesign it into an approvable version, stating what capability you gave up to get there.
Grading is rubric-based and explainable. Your submission is scored against weighted criteria covering the classification scheme, the triage register, sourced verdicts, checkable conditions, the human-impact reasoning, and the redesign, with per-criterion feedback quoted from your document. The pass threshold is 65 percent and you can resubmit. Governance, risk, and responsible use is a scored domain on the Claude Certified Associate Foundations exam.