Skip to playbook

HR10·Policy Update

Policy / Handbook Update Drafts

Review current policy language, diagnose gaps, and produce compliance-checked redline revisions with change rationale.

Before you start

What you’ll need

  • Access to the current policy or handbook section scheduled for update
  • Case trend summary from the employee relations case review (HR09)
  • Familiarity with your organisation's policy approval and sign-off process
  • Current Policy or Handbook Section
  • Regulatory or Compliance Reference Notes
  • Stakeholder Change Requests

Who’s involved

  • HR Policy Analyst — Reviews current policy language, assembles inputs, and coordinates the redline workflow through to approval.
  • Compliance Reviewer — Validates redlined changes against regulatory requirements and flags legal or compliance risks.
  • HR Director — Approves the final policy redline pack or escalates unresolved items for further discussion.

Safe use

  • Data Handling — This workflow processes internal policy text, employee relations case trend data, and compliance reference materials. Do not paste these inputs into public or unapproved GenAI tools.
  • Verification — GenAI may misinterpret legal intent or omit required regulatory clauses. Have a compliance reviewer verify every redlined change against the source compliance references before routing for approval.

Execution steps

Hybrid

Inputs

  • Confirm the current policy or handbook section to be updated is identified and accessible
  • Confirm the case trend summary from the employee relations review is available
  • Confirm any relevant regulatory or compliance reference materials are gathered
  • Confirm stakeholder change requests have been collected and documented

Prompt

Identify gaps and outdated clauses in current policy

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the following source documents:
1. Current Policy or Handbook Section
2. Case Trend Summary
3. Regulatory or Compliance Reference Notes
4. Stakeholder Change Requests

TASK
Identify and list every clause or section in the current policy that is outdated, unclear, incomplete, or missing relative to the case trends and any compliance signals in the brief. For each gap, state the location (section or clause reference), the issue type, and a brief explanation of why it needs attention.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Return a markdown table with the following columns:

| Section/Clause | Issue Type | Explanation |
|---|---|---|

Issue Type must be one of: Outdated, Unclear, Incomplete, Missing.

After the table, include a one-paragraph summary of the most critical patterns across the identified gaps.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not suggest replacement language in this step — focus on diagnosis only. Do not fabricate case trends or compliance requirements not present in the provided inputs. Only flag issues that are directly supported by evidence in the source documents.

Outputs

  • Confirm every identified gap references a specific section or clause in the current policy
  • Verify each gap is supported by evidence from the case trend summary or compliance notes

Verification: Verify the AI did not fabricate gap categories or attribute trends not present in the source case summary.

GenAI

Inputs

  • Confirm the gap analysis report has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy

Prompt

Draft redlined policy text with change rationale

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the current policy or handbook section, a gap analysis report listing identified issues, and regulatory or compliance reference notes.

TASK
For each gap identified in the gap analysis report, draft a redlined revision of the affected policy text. Present the original text alongside the proposed revision and include a one-sentence rationale for each change.

OUTPUT FORMAT
For each revision, use this structure:

### [Section/Clause Reference]
**Original:** [existing text]
**Revised:** [new text with changes clearly marked]
**Rationale:** [one sentence explaining why the change is needed, referencing the gap or compliance requirement]

EXAMPLE
### Section 4.2 — Flexible Work Arrangements
**Original:** Employees may request flexible arrangements subject to manager approval.
**Revised:** Employees may request flexible arrangements by submitting a written request to their manager, who must respond within 10 business days with a written decision and rationale.
**Rationale:** Case trends show disputes arising from verbal-only approvals with no documented response timeline (Gap: Unclear).

CONSTRAINTS
Do not introduce changes beyond those identified in the gap analysis. Do not remove policy language that is still accurate and current. Do not reference specific organisations, jurisdictions, or proprietary legal frameworks.

Outputs

  • Draft Redline Document
  • Confirm each redline maps to a gap from the gap analysis report
  • Verify original policy text is preserved where no gap was identified
  • Check that rationale statements are specific and reference the source gap

Verification: Verify each redlined change accurately reflects the identified gap and does not alter policy intent beyond the documented issue.

Hybrid

Inputs

  • Confirm the regulatory or compliance reference notes are current and authoritative

Prompt

Flag compliance risks in draft redlines

CONTEXT
You will be provided with a draft redline document containing proposed policy changes and regulatory or compliance reference notes.

TASK
Review each redlined revision and flag any that may conflict with the provided compliance references, introduce ambiguous legal language, or omit required regulatory clauses. For each flag, state the section, the specific compliance risk, and a suggested resolution direction.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Return a markdown table:

| Section | Compliance Risk | Suggested Resolution |
|---|---|---|

If no compliance risks are found for a given redline, do not include a row for it. After the table, state the total count of flagged items.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not approve or reject redlines — flag risks for human review only. Do not fabricate regulatory requirements not present in the provided references. Do not provide definitive legal advice; frame all flags as items requiring compliance reviewer confirmation.

Outputs

  • Compliance-Checked Redline Document
  • Confirm all flagged compliance risks reference specific regulatory requirements from the provided notes
  • Verify no redline was approved or rejected — only risks were flagged for review
GenAI

Inputs

  • Compliance-Checked Redline Document
  • Gap Analysis Report
  • Confirm all compliance flags from the previous step are addressed or noted

Data Handling: Do not include specific employee names or case identifiers from the trend summary in the rationale output.

Prompt

Summarise change rationale for non-specialist stakeholders

CONTEXT
You will be provided with a compliance-checked redline document and the gap analysis report that informed the changes.

TASK
For each policy change in the redline document, write a plain-language rationale summary suitable for non-specialist stakeholders. Each summary should explain what changed, why it changed, and what case trends or compliance factors drove the update.

OUTPUT FORMAT
For each change:

- **Section:** [clause reference]
- **What changed:** [one sentence describing the revision]
- **Why:** [one sentence linking to case trends or compliance factors]
- **Impact:** [one sentence on who is affected and how]

EXAMPLE
- **Section:** 4.2 — Flexible Work Arrangements
- **What changed:** Added a written request and 10-business-day response requirement.
- **Why:** Case trends showed disputes from undocumented verbal approvals.
- **Impact:** Managers must now respond in writing within the stated timeframe; employees gain a documented decision trail.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not use legal jargon or technical compliance codes. Do not include personally identifiable information or raw case details. Reference trends at a summary level only.

Outputs

  • Confirm each rationale summary is written in plain language without legal jargon
  • Verify no personally identifiable information or raw case details appear in any summary

Verification: Verify the AI did not introduce legal conclusions or compliance interpretations not supported by the reference materials.

Hybrid

Inputs

  • Confirm all stakeholder change requests are available for cross-reference

Prompt

Merge redlines and rationale into consolidated approval pack

CONTEXT
You will be provided with a compliance-checked redline document, a change rationale summary, and stakeholder change requests.

TASK
Merge the compliance-checked redlines, rationale summaries, and any outstanding stakeholder change requests into a single consolidated policy redline pack. Flag any stakeholder requests that conflict with the compliance-checked revisions rather than resolving them.

OUTPUT FORMAT
The consolidated pack must include three sections:

**1. Revision Summary Table**
| Section | Change Type | Rationale | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Status must be one of: Accepted, Flagged for Discussion.

**2. Full Redlined Policy Text**
The complete policy section with all accepted changes applied and flagged items annotated with [FLAGGED] markers.

**3. Open Items**
A numbered list of unresolved conflicts or items requiring further stakeholder input.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not resolve conflicts between stakeholder requests and compliance findings — flag them for human decision. Do not omit any stakeholder request; include rejected or deferred items with an explanation. Do not alter compliance-approved redlines without flagging the change.

Outputs

  • Consolidated Policy Redline Pack
  • Confirm all stakeholder change requests are accounted for in the consolidated pack
  • Verify conflicting items are flagged rather than silently resolved
  • Check that the revision summary table matches the full redlined text

Verification: Verify the AI did not silently resolve conflicts between stakeholder requests and compliance findings.

Human

Inputs

  • Consolidated Policy Redline Pack
  • Confirm the consolidated policy redline pack has been reviewed by the compliance reviewer

Outputs

  • Confirm all open items from the consolidation step are resolved or formally escalated
  • Verify the final policy draft redlines are complete and approval-ready
  • Check that the output document matches the data contract label for downstream consumption by HR18

Reference

Guardrails

  • Source-Backed Changes Only — Every redline must trace to a documented gap, case trend, or compliance requirement; do not include edits based on AI inference alone.
  • Original Intent Preserved — Retain existing policy language that remains accurate; only modify clauses the gap analysis identifies as outdated, unclear, or incomplete.
  • Diagnosis Before Drafting — Complete the full gap analysis before drafting any redlines to prevent premature edits that miss systemic issues.

Pitfalls

  • Accepting AI-drafted redlines without verifying each change against the original policy and compliance references
  • Pasting full employee relations case details into the prompt instead of using the anonymised trend summary
  • Allowing the AI to introduce new policy clauses not supported by the gap analysis or stakeholder requests
  • Skipping the compliance validation step and routing draft redlines directly for stakeholder approval

Definition of Done

  • Every redlined change maps to a specific gap identified in the gap analysis report
  • The compliance reviewer has validated all redlines against the regulatory or compliance reference notes with no unresolved flags
  • The consolidated redline pack includes a rationale summary for every change that a non-specialist stakeholder can understand
  • No personally identifiable information or raw case details appear in any generated artifact

GET FULL ACCESS

Unlock every step, prompt, and downloadable example — for this playbook and the rest of AGASI AiOS, our GenAI capability framework.

We'll send a magic link — no password needed.

AGASI AiOS · HR10 v1.0 · Apr 7, 2026