Check whether permission and provenance keep pace with capability.
Where does my organization actually stand?
Draft pathway. This content was written for the site and is awaiting content-owner review. The learning material in Learn with AI and Build Responsible AI has already been reviewed; this pathway has not.
Technical and creative teams usually rate technology high and move quickly. The dimensions that lag are governance and ethics — rights to the source material, disclosure, and who approves publication.
- Capability is rarely the constraint here
If technology is your strongest dimension, the honest assessment is about the other six.
- Provenance travels with the asset
Know what a draft was built from. 'We cannot reconstruct it' is a finding.
- Speed hides the approval gap
Work that can ship in an hour can bypass a review designed for a week.
Lucas coordinates digital content for a small studio. The team can produce drafts quickly. Nobody has agreed what may be built from client-supplied material, whether AI assistance is disclosed, or who approves publication.
Lucas and every example here are prepared learning material, not a real case or an AI-generated result.
My readiness assessment
- Trace the inputs
For one recent piece, list every source it drew on and whether you hold rights to use each that way.
- Locate the approval gate
Identify the point where something becomes publishable and who decides.
- Decide the disclosure position
State when AI assistance is disclosed to clients and audiences. Decide it now, not when asked.
- Assess the seven dimensions
Rate all seven against one specific content type. Expect technology strong and governance weak.
A client asks what it was made from.
A client asks whether AI was used in their campaign assets and what source material was involved.
What does being unable to answer indicate?
Every option has an explanation. Open as many as you like — nothing is recorded or scored.
Next: Decide how we govern it
Who decides, who reviews, and who is accountable?