---
title: "Finish the impact assessment for an in-scope government AI use case before deployment"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/finish-the-impact-assessment-for-an-in-scope-government-ai-use-case-befo"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A45-WR20261022-8"
practice_area: "AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Finish the impact assessment for an in-scope government AI use case before deployment

> From the use-case papers, record whether the agency has assessed the use case against the in-scope criteria in Appendix C of the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, and quote the passage.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/finish-the-impact-assessment-for-an-in-scope-government-ai-use-case-befo  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the use-case papers, record whether the agency has assessed the use case against the in-scope criteria in Appendix C of the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, and quote the passage. Do not invent the Appendix C criteria; that appendix was not opened. If the lawyer has marked the use case in scope, list the impact-assessment steps the page requires: start at the design stage while requirements are being developed; before deployment, finalise the assessment and apply any agreed risk treatments; use the Australian Government AI impact assessment tool, or an internal process that integrates all provisions of the tool, is consistent, delivers the same or a higher inherent and residual risk outcome, and can be revised when the tool is updated. Note the page's deadlines: agencies must begin assessments within 12 months of the policy taking effect, and existing use cases not yet assessed must be tested for scope and have all relevant policy actions applied by 30 April 2027. Do not decide that the use case is in scope. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether the agency and the use case are in scope, whether an internal process truly matches the impact assessment tool, and which risk treatments are agreed before deployment. The policy page records that version 2.0 took effect on 15 December 2025. Appendix C was not opened. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From the use-case papers, record whether the agency has assessed the use case against the in-scope criteria in Appendix C of the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, and quote the passage. Do not invent the Appendix C criteria; that appendix was not opened. If the lawyer has marked the use case in scope, list the impact-assessment steps the page requires: start at the design stage while requirements are being developed; before deployment, finalise the assessment and apply any agreed risk treatments; use the Australian Government AI impact assessment tool, or an internal process that integrates all provisions of the tool, is consistent, delivers the same or a higher inherent and residual risk outcome, and can be revised when the tool is updated. Note the page's deadlines: agencies must begin assessments within 12 months of the policy taking effect, and existing use cases not yet assessed must be tested for scope and have all relevant policy actions applied by 30 April 2027. Do not decide that the use case is in scope.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether the agency and the use case are in scope, whether an internal process truly matches the impact assessment tool, and which risk treatments are agreed before deployment. The policy page records that version 2.0 took effect on 15 December 2025. Appendix C was not opened.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm Appendix C has been applied by the lawyer. Do not fill in-scope criteria the appendix was not opened to supply.
2. Confirm an internal process is recorded as consistent with the impact assessment tool, including the same or a higher inherent and residual risk outcome.
3. Confirm the assessment is final, and agreed treatments are listed, before any deployment step is marked done.
4. Apply the 30 April 2027 date only to existing use cases not yet assessed, and the twelve-month start only by reference to the policy's commencement.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [Digital Transformation Agency: AI use case impact assessment](https://www.digital.gov.au/ai/ai-in-government-policy/ai-use-case-impact-assessment) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Digital Transformation Agency: Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, version 2.1](https://www.digital.gov.au/ai/ai-in-government-policy) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/finish-the-impact-assessment-for-an-in-scope-government-ai-use-case-befo/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*