Only sanctioned AI tools may process resident PII; unsanctioned tools are blocked. Which corporate AI policy is this?

Corporate and municipal AI policies commonly distinguish sanctioned from unsanctioned tools and restrict sensitive processing to approved systems. Limiting resident PII to sanctioned municipal AI tools while blocking unsanctioned tools is that policy in force: approval, logging, vendor review, and data-handling terms exist only on the sanctioned side. Whether a human or a machine reviews the output does not redefine the boundary; restricting resident PII to approved tools for human-versus-machine review is not an authorization mechanism.

An anonymized-versus-identified data policy restricting resident PII to approved tools does not fit the stem: it governs whether data is de-identified before use, not which tools are sanctioned to process resident PII or how unsanctioned tools are blocked. A public-versus-private model policy restricting resident PII to approved tools misses the point: it addresses whether the model is a public shared service or a private isolated deployment, not the access rule that limits processing to sanctioned tools and blocks unsanctioned ones. A human-versus-machine review policy restricting resident PII to approved tools misses the mark: deciding whether a person or an automated check validates outputs is a review control, not the access rule that determines which tools may process resident PII.

Exam caveat: sanctioned-versus-unsanctioned policy is an access and processing rule for sensitive data—especially resident PII—not a human-versus-machine review policy restricting resident PII to approved tools.

Operational check: publish the sanctioned-tool list, technically block unsanctioned generative destinations for PII pathways where feasible, and audit for resident PII appearing in unapproved AI systems.