---
description: 'Sensitive Uses assessment for Phase 2: screening categories, restricted uses gate, and depth tier assignment'
applyTo: '**/.copilot-tracking/rai-plans/**'
---

# Sensitive Uses Screening

Phase 2 of the RAI Planner orchestration screens the target system against Microsoft's Responsible AI Standard v2 sensitive uses guidance. The screening determines which categories of sensitive use apply, enforces a restricted uses gate, and assigns a depth tier that governs the rigor of subsequent phases.

## Sensitive Uses Categories

Every system undergoes evaluation against the nine categories below. Each category maps to documented patterns of AI harm. A system may trigger multiple categories.

| Category                            | Description                                                                                     | Risk Indicators                                                    |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Consequential impact on individuals | Decisions affecting employment, housing, insurance, education, credit, or similar life outcomes | Automated scoring, ranking, or eligibility determinations          |
| Consequential impact on communities | System effects on public resources, infrastructure, or community services                       | Aggregate decision patterns with disparate group impact            |
| Potential for physical harm         | Risk of bodily injury from system output or downstream actions                                  | Safety-critical integration, robotic control, medical guidance     |
| Potential for psychological harm    | Risk of emotional distress, manipulation, or coercion                                           | Persuasive interfaces, mental health context, vulnerable users     |
| Surveillance and tracking           | Monitoring, identification, or tracking of individuals                                          | Biometric processing, location tracking, behavioral profiling      |
| Deception risk                      | Potential for users to be misled about system nature or outputs                                 | Synthetic content generation, impersonation, hidden AI involvement |
| Transparency and disclosure         | Communication of AI system nature, capabilities, limitations, and decision processes to users   | Hidden AI involvement, undisclosed limitations, opaque outputs     |
| Impacts on human autonomy           | Reduction in meaningful human choice or oversight                                               | Automated decision-making without appeal, nudging patterns         |
| Dual-use potential                  | System capabilities applicable to harmful secondary purposes                                    | General-purpose models, data enrichment, pattern recognition       |

### Consequential Impact on Individuals

Evaluate whether the system produces outputs that materially affect individual life outcomes:

* Does the system score, rank, or classify individuals for decisions about employment, housing, credit, insurance, or education?
* Can system outputs restrict access to essential services or benefits?
* Are affected individuals informed about the system's role in decisions about them?
* Do affected individuals have a mechanism to contest or appeal system-influenced decisions?
* What is the severity and reversibility of negative outcomes from incorrect system outputs?

### Consequential Impact on Communities

Evaluate whether the system produces aggregate effects on groups or communities:

* Does the system allocate public resources, infrastructure access, or community services?
* Can system behavior produce disparate outcomes across demographic or geographic groups?
* Are community stakeholders represented in the system's design and governance?

### Potential for Physical Harm

Evaluate whether the system operates in contexts where outputs could contribute to bodily injury:

* Does the system control or influence physical actuators, vehicles, or safety-critical equipment?
* Can system outputs guide medical treatment, dosing, or diagnostic decisions?
* Is the system deployed in environments where incorrect outputs could create hazardous conditions?
* What safeguards prevent dangerous outputs from reaching downstream systems?

### Potential for Psychological Harm

Evaluate whether the system could cause emotional distress or psychological manipulation:

* Does the system interact with individuals in mental health, crisis, or vulnerable contexts?
* Can the system's persuasive or generative capabilities be used to manipulate user behavior?
* Does the system produce content that could distress users through inaccuracy, bias, or inappropriate tone?

### Surveillance and Tracking

Evaluate whether the system processes data in ways that enable monitoring or identification of individuals:

* Does the system perform facial recognition, gait analysis, or other biometric identification?
* Can the system track individual movement, behavior, or communication patterns over time?
* Does the system aggregate data sources in ways that create detailed individual profiles?
* Are data subjects informed about the nature and extent of monitoring?
* What retention and access controls govern surveillance data?

### Deception Risk

Evaluate whether the system could mislead users or third parties about its nature or outputs:

* Does the system generate synthetic content (text, images, audio, video) that could be mistaken for human-created content?
* Can system outputs be used to impersonate individuals or fabricate evidence?

### Transparency and Disclosure

Evaluate whether users and affected parties receive clear information about the system's AI nature, capabilities, and decision processes (MS RAI Standard Transparency principle, EU AI Act Article 52):

* Are users clearly informed they are interacting with an AI system?
* Are the system's capabilities and limitations clearly communicated?
* Is there a mechanism for users to understand how AI-generated outputs were produced?

### Impacts on Human Autonomy

Evaluate whether the system reduces meaningful human control over important decisions:

* Does the system make consequential decisions without human review or override capability?
* Can individuals opt out of system-influenced processes?
* Does the system employ persuasive design patterns that limit informed choice?
* Is the system's role in decision-making transparent to affected parties?

### Dual-Use Potential

Evaluate whether the system's capabilities could be repurposed for harmful applications:

* Does the system possess general-purpose capabilities applicable beyond its intended use?
* Can the system's data, models, or outputs be extracted and applied to harmful purposes?
* What access controls and use-case restrictions limit secondary applications?
* Does the system's design include safeguards against misuse scenarios?

## Restricted Uses Gate

The restricted uses gate is a hard stop. If any restricted use applies, the RAI Planner halts Phase 2 and records the finding. The system cannot proceed to Phase 3 or beyond without explicit organizational escalation and documented authorization.

### Restricted Use Categories

1. **Weapons and military applications.** Systems designed to cause physical harm, enable lethal autonomous decision-making, or support weapons targeting.
2. **Mass surveillance without consent.** Systems that monitor populations without informed consent or legal authorization, including indiscriminate facial recognition in public spaces.
3. **Social scoring.** Systems that assign behavioral scores to individuals for the purpose of restricting rights, services, or opportunities based on aggregated personal conduct data.
4. **Manipulation of vulnerable populations.** Systems that exploit cognitive vulnerabilities of specific groups (children, elderly, individuals in crisis) to influence behavior against their interests.
5. **Critical infrastructure without human override.** Fully autonomous control of critical infrastructure (power grids, water systems, transportation networks) with no human override capability.

### Gate Failure Behavior

When a restricted use is detected:

* The RAI Planner sets the state field `restrictedUsesCleared` to `false`.
* The state field `currentPhase` remains at `2`.
* The screening artifact records the specific restricted use category, the evidence supporting the determination, and the recommended escalation path.
* No subsequent phases execute until the gate is resolved through organizational review.
* Resolution requires documented authorization or system redesign that eliminates the restricted use.

## Depth Tiers

The depth tier determines the rigor, scope, and evidence requirements for Phases 3 through 6. Tier assignment is based on the sensitive uses screening results and the restricted uses gate outcome.

| Tier          | Criteria                                                                                        | Assessment Scope                                                                                  | Typical Duration                 |
|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Basic         | No sensitive uses triggered, restricted uses gate cleared                                       | Core RAI principle review, standard documentation                                                 | 1-2 phases                       |
| Standard      | 1-3 sensitive uses triggered at low-to-moderate severity                                        | Targeted principle deep-dives, stakeholder consultation, mitigation planning                      | 3-4 phases                       |
| Comprehensive | 4+ sensitive uses triggered, any high-severity category, or restricted use requiring escalation | Full principle assessment, external review, ongoing monitoring plan, detailed mitigation evidence | All 6 phases with expanded scope |

### Basic Tier

The Basic tier applies when the system triggers no sensitive uses categories and clears the restricted uses gate.

* Trigger conditions: All 9 category scores at 0, restricted uses gate cleared.
* Required phases: Phase 3 (standards mapping) and Phase 6 (summary). Phases 4 and 5 are abbreviated.
* Evidence requirements: Per-category screening rationale, gate clearance confirmation.
* Review rigor: Self-assessment with documented rationale.

### Standard Tier

The Standard tier applies when the system triggers a limited number of sensitive uses at low-to-moderate severity.

* Trigger conditions: 1-3 categories scored at 1-2, no category scored at 3, restricted uses gate cleared.
* Required phases: All 6 phases execute. Phases 3-5 focus on triggered categories.
* Evidence requirements: Per-category screening rationale, targeted stakeholder input for triggered categories, mitigation plans for each triggered category.
* Review rigor: Internal review with stakeholder validation of mitigation plans.

### Comprehensive Tier

The Comprehensive tier applies when the system triggers extensive or high-severity sensitive uses.

* Trigger conditions: 4+ categories triggered, or any category scored at 3, or restricted use requiring escalation review.
* Required phases: All 6 phases execute with expanded scope. Phase 4 includes external stakeholder consultation. Phase 5 includes ongoing monitoring commitments.
* Evidence requirements: Per-category screening rationale, external stakeholder consultation records, detailed mitigation plans with effectiveness evidence, monitoring and reporting commitments, organizational sign-off.
* Review rigor: External review panel, organizational leadership approval, periodic reassessment schedule.

## Screening Templates

### Sensitive Uses Screening Template

The sensitive uses screening artifact follows this structure:

```markdown
# Sensitive Uses Screening

## Project Information

* System name: [name]
* Assessment date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
* Assessor: [role or identifier]
* System description: [1-2 sentence summary]

## Category Screening

### [Category Name]

* Score: [0-3]
* Applicable: [Yes/No]
* Evidence: [summary of findings]
* Screening questions reviewed: [list of questions evaluated]

[Repeat for all 9 categories]

## Restricted Uses Gate

* Gate result: [Cleared/Blocked]
* Restricted uses identified: [list or "None"]
* Escalation required: [Yes/No]

## Tier Assignment

* Assigned tier: [Basic/Standard/Comprehensive]
* Justification: [rationale referencing category scores and gate result]
* Override applied: [Yes/No, with justification if Yes]
```

### Use and Misuse Inventory Template

The use and misuse inventory accompanies the screening and documents intended and foreseeable system applications:

```markdown
# Use and Misuse Inventory

## Intended Uses

| Use Case      | Users          | Context              | Expected Outcome   |
|---------------|----------------|----------------------|--------------------|
| [description] | [target users] | [deployment context] | [intended benefit] |

## Foreseeable Misuses

| Misuse Scenario | Likelihood        | Severity          | Mitigation             |
|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------------|
| [description]   | [Low/Medium/High] | [Low/Medium/High] | [control or safeguard] |

## Unintended Consequences

| Consequence   | Affected Group | Detection Method | Response Plan          |
|---------------|----------------|------------------|------------------------|
| [description] | [population]   | [how detected]   | [remediation approach] |
```

## Scoring Guidance

### Per-Category Scoring

Each sensitive uses category receives a score from 0 to 3:

* **0: Not applicable.** The system has no characteristics relevant to this category.
* **1: Low relevance.** The system has indirect or minor relevance. Risk indicators are present but mitigated by design.
* **2: Moderate relevance.** The system directly engages with this category. One or more risk indicators apply and require active mitigation.
* **3: High relevance.** The system is centrally concerned with this category. Multiple risk indicators apply with potential for significant harm.

### Aggregation Method

Tier assignment uses both the maximum individual category score and the count of triggered categories:

1. If any category scores 3, assign Comprehensive tier.
2. If 4 or more categories score 1 or above, assign Comprehensive tier.
3. If 1-3 categories score 1-2 with none at 3, assign Standard tier.
4. If all categories score 0, assign Basic tier.

### Tier Override Rules

The RAI Planner may override the calculated tier in specific circumstances:

* Upgrade override: The assessor may increase the tier when qualitative factors (novel technology, regulatory scrutiny, public visibility) warrant additional rigor. Document the override justification in the screening artifact.
* Downgrade override: Tier reduction requires documented organizational authorization and a written rationale demonstrating that the lower tier provides sufficient coverage. Downgrade overrides are not permitted when any category scores 3.

### Documentation Requirements

Every screening must produce:

* A completed sensitive uses screening artifact using the template above.
* A completed use and misuse inventory using the template above.
* Per-category scoring rationale with specific evidence references.
* Tier assignment justification linking scores to tier criteria.
* Override documentation if any tier override was applied.
