Talk to UsResponsible AI resourceMenuHomeModel policyDecisionsResearch & approachGet support
Leadership guide/Decisions/Incidents, concerns & remedies
People need a visible route to help. The institution needs a practiced route to containment and correction.
HumanSkills recommendation · September 2026
In this guideRecommended positionYour local choicesA campus situationWho is responsibleLanguage to useEvidence of implementationSupporting sourcesDownload PDF→
Read, share and use with your team.
HumanSkills recommendationConnect AI incidents to existing security, privacy, safety, academic and service processes. Make reporting simple, assign triage authority, preserve necessary evidence and protect affected people. Define who can pause a use and who authorizes restart.
An inaccurate answer can become an incident when it affects a deadline, eligibility or safety. A data disclosure may require a different response from an academic dispute. One visible entry point can route concerns without pretending every issue has the same owner.
What the evidence supportsPurdue directs reporting of unauthorized non-public data use. RPCC identifies reporting and investigation responsibilities. HumanSkills recommends a coordinated route that also accommodates harmful outcomes and service failures.
The right arrangement depends on the purpose, consequences, applicable requirements and capacity of your institution. Use these options to make the choice explicit.
Use existing incident systems
Consider this when: Existing teams can classify and route AI-related concerns reliably.
The tradeoff: Add examples and routing guidance so AI harms do not fall between categories.
Add a visible AI contact route
Consider this when: Users need a clear starting point across several kinds of concern.
The tradeoff: Connect it to responsible offices and service expectations; avoid creating an unmonitored inbox.
Suspend a use pending review
Consider this when: Continuing creates a material unresolved risk or harm.
The tradeoff: Preserve essential service, relevant evidence and a clear decision on restart or retirement.
An AI assistant gives an incorrect scholarship deadline. Several students may have relied on the same answer.
Fixing the answer alone does not address the students already affected.
What the team produces: An incident record, affected-person response and authorized restart decision.
Board & trustees
Ask how serious incidents and unresolved harms are escalated for oversight.
Institutional leaders
Assign response authority and ensure remedies and service continuity are resourced.
AI task force
Map AI concerns into existing response processes and test the handoffs.
Apply these roles within your institution’s actual governance and delegated authority.
Illustrative model clause
Suspected AI-related harm, information exposure, unauthorized action or material service failure must be reported through the published institutional route. Responsible offices must triage concerns, protect affected people, preserve necessary evidence and determine corrective action. Restart after suspension requires documented authorization and appropriate verification.
Copy the clause
Review this clause with the full policy and local requirements. It is an implementation starting point, not a statement of measured consensus.
Model policy §6→Model policy §9→Model policy §11→
When to reconsiderReview after serious incidents, missed handoffs, repeated complaints or material changes to the service.
Selected precedents and guidance supporting this chapter. These sources do not imply institutional endorsement of HumanSkills or agreement with every recommendation.
Source review: 24 September 2026. Read the editorial approach.
Continue the workKeep the policy connected to reality.
→
Read the research comparisons and explore the annotated library across US colleges, universities and international institutions. Use the model language as a starting point for your own decision.
Shared ground and local choices→Make the policy yours→