Identify appropriate and inappropriate use cases

Claude assists people; it doesn't replace accountable decisions about people, and it never fabricates what is presented as real.

Key ideas

Appropriate

Drafting from approved material for review, summarising for a decision-maker, brainstorming, explaining terms in plain language, preparing training content.

Inappropriate: automated consequential decisions

Rejecting loan, job or grant applicants, banning customers, deciding exclusions, dismissals, benefits or housing priority, without human review.

Inappropriate: fabrication presented as genuine

Fake reviews, testimonials, case studies, resident or customer posts, quotes or endorsements.

Inappropriate: profiling and deception

Labelling people as “difficult” or “likely to complain” for worse treatment; misleading appeals or statements.

The test

Would a person be harmed or misled if Claude were wrong, or if the output were taken as real? Then a human must decide, or it shouldn't be done.

Common traps

• “Acceptable if names are changed” or “if labelled as an example”, when the content still implies real results.
• “Fine because it's internal.”