1. Summary

This assessment is illustrative. The agreed register identifies AIA-01 but records the evidence for AI-02 as partial: settings, data flow and review evidence have not been supplied. The recommendation is therefore conditional. It is not evidence that the feature is configured correctly or that checks have taken place.

2. Description of the use

The feature assists Customer Service staff in preparing replies to customer enquiries. It is intended to draft, not to make the final decision or send a reply without a user’s approval.

The described workflow is:

1. A customer enquiry arrives in the helpdesk and is recorded as a ticket.
2. The feature drafts a proposed reply using the ticket history and relevant knowledge-base material.
3. A Customer Service user reads the enquiry and draft, checks the facts and edits the response where necessary.
4. The user approves and sends the reply.

The workflow description does not establish which ticket-history fields or knowledge sources are available to the feature, or whether the approval gate is enforced in Quillmarrow’s configuration. Those points need confirmation.

The data used may include the customer’s enquiry, contact details, order and delivery information, previous correspondence and relevant knowledge-base content. The precise fields and any additional metadata remain to be confirmed. Customers may be affected by inaccurate or inappropriate replies or disclosure of their information. Customer Service staff may be affected by unclear checking responsibilities, misleading drafts or excessive reliance on the feature.

The customer web-chat widget is a separate use, AI-12. It is not yet live and may be piloted only after its controls are in place. This assessment does not approve customer-facing use of that widget.

3. Data and personal data

The Head of Operations, as DPO, should review the confirmed data flow and proposed handling with the service owner. Questions about applicable legal requirements, including cross-border arrangements, should be referred to a Singapore-qualified lawyer. No legal conclusion is made here.

4. What could go wrong

Likelihood and impact are illustrative Low, Medium or High judgements for prioritisation, not measured results. Residual ratings are provisional, assuming the proposed controls operate as intended; implementation and effectiveness have not been verified. “Existing control” means the required or described control, not proof that it operates.

If a suspected personal-data incident occurs, staff should stop the affected activity, preserve relevant evidence and escalate promptly to the DPO under Quillmarrow’s incident process. Whether notification is required should be assessed and, where needed, confirmed with a Singapore-qualified lawyer. A notifiable data breach must be notified to the PDPC as soon as practicable and no later than three calendar days after the organisation assesses it as notifiable.

5. Human oversight

AI-02 is human-in-the-loop. The Customer Service user is responsible for the reply and must check and approve it before sending. A plausible draft is not evidence that its contents are correct.

Before sending, the user should check:

• The recipient and ticket are correct, and the reply contains no other customer’s information.
• Order, delivery and account details match the current authorised records.
• Any proposed refund, replacement or other commitment follows the applicable policy and has the necessary authority.
• The reply answers the enquiry, uses an appropriate tone and does not present uncertain information as fact.
• Any sensitive or unresolved issue is escalated rather than guessed at.

As a proposed monitoring measure, the Head of Customer Service should review 20 sent AI-assisted replies a week for the first eight weeks, where that many are available. Record the number available and reviewed, errors found, corrections and follow-up. Include a mix of routine and more difficult enquiries; do not treat this sample as proof that all replies are correct. The owner should then decide and record an appropriate continuing review frequency.

Intervention triggers include disclosure or suspected disclosure of another customer’s data, an unauthorised commitment, repeated factual errors, a bypassed approval gate, an unexpected setting change or evidence that users are not checking drafts. The Head of Customer Service should pause the affected use where necessary, correct or contain the issue, notify the IT Manager and DPO as relevant, and record who authorises resumption after checks.

6. Vendor evidence status

The vendor questionnaire (A8) records the following supplied material and claims. General vendor material is not evidence of Quillmarrow’s tenant settings or operating effectiveness.

7. Framework mapping

This mapping identifies relevant governance questions and process checks. It does not establish conformity or legal compliance. No AI Verify technical tests were run.

8. Conditions of approval

1. Confirm and document the AI-02 data flow, including fields, sources, recipients, locations and support access.
2. Obtain and review Quillmarrow-specific retention, deletion and vendor-training settings and the applicable contract terms.
3. Demonstrate that every draft requires a Customer Service user’s approval before sending; retain the test evidence.
4. Restrict access to the data and knowledge sources needed for the role, and test for cross-customer disclosure.
5. Provide staff with the checking and escalation instructions in section 5, including controls over refund promises.
6. Test representative incorrect-information, inappropriate-tone and disclosure scenarios before relying on the workflow; record findings and remediation.
7. Establish the proposed initial sample review, intervention triggers and incident escalation route.
8. Record a settings baseline and a process for reviewing material vendor or configuration changes.
9. Have the DPO review the confirmed data flow, including Malaysia-related handling, and obtain legal advice where needed.
10. Obtain the COO’s documented decision. Until the conditions are evidenced, the recommendation must not be treated as proof of approval or control operation.

9. Unresolved decisions

No decision outcomes or completion dates have been supplied. The dates below are proposed decision targets, not records that a decision was made.

10. Sign-off