Trace the decision, not the novelty
Imagine a UAE engineering-services company using a generative-AI tool to summarise a customer's request for quotation. The summary captures the equipment and delivery location but omits a contract-specific inspection deliverable. A sales engineer reviews the fluent draft quickly, assumes it is complete and issues a quotation that does not include the required activity. The problem is not simply that AI made an error; the enquiry-review process allowed an unverified summary to become the working requirement.
This is an illustrative scenario, not a claimed LETA client result. Start by naming the process decision that AI influences: requirement acceptance, design calculation, supplier selection, inspection, product release, complaint response or another step. Then consider the consequence if the output is incomplete, inaccurate, biased, inconsistent or unavailable. The control should match that consequence rather than the popularity of the tool.
Put a boundary around inputs and references
Define what employees may and may not enter into the tool. Customer files, personal data, confidential technical information, source code and copyrighted material require appropriate control; a convenient public prompt box is not automatically an approved repository. The 2026 ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group paper specifically draws attention to intellectual-property rights and warns against uploading ISO standards and other copyrighted material to AI systems where that is not permitted.
Next, identify the reliable records against which the output will be checked. In the quotation example, that might include the original RFQ, approved scope checklist, current technical specification, commercial approval and documented customer clarification. The AI output is a draft or recommendation; it does not replace the source requirement. If the team cannot show what source was checked, a confident answer is not trustworthy evidence.
Make human review a real control
Writing 'human in the loop' in a procedure is not enough. Assign a person who has the competence, information, time and authority to challenge the output. State what that reviewer must verify, which decisions cannot be automated, when escalation is required and what evidence of approval is retained. A reviewer who only confirms that the text sounds professional is not verifying technical or contractual accuracy.
Test the review using representative failures: an omitted requirement, an outdated reference, an invented fact, conflicting source documents and a prompt containing restricted information. Confirm that the user recognises the issue and that the process routes it correctly. Where an external AI provider is used, include the provider and service within the organisation's normal evaluation of externally provided processes, products or services as applicable to the use case.
Monitor what happens after approval
Track signals that show whether the AI-assisted process remains effective: detected errors, reviewer overrides, customer corrections, complaints, rework, unusual response patterns, system changes and cases where the tool was unavailable. Sample completed transactions during internal audit and bring meaningful performance or risk information into management review. If the use case, model, data source or provider changes, reassess the controls rather than assuming the earlier validation still applies.
This five-control review is LETA's practical implementation method, not a mandatory ISO form or copied requirement. ISO's official 2026 material identifies digitalisation as part of the current business environment while retaining established quality-management principles. The ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group AI paper provides timely auditing considerations, but its own disclaimer says it is educational guidance rather than specified requirements or universal audit criteria. Confirm exact requirements with an authorised copy of ISO 9001:2026 and apply relevant contractual, privacy, security and regulatory obligations. LETA supports implementation and readiness; an independent certification body makes certification decisions.