A finished case-study film may contain only a small part of a recorded interview. The source recording could also include informal conversation, unused answers, confidential project details or information about other people. When a production workflow uses an AI transcription or summarising tool, ask what happens to that fuller recording.
“AI-assisted editing” is not a sufficiently precise answer. Identify the proposed activity, the material involved and the relevant handling arrangements before approving the workflow. This is a supplier-briefing exercise, not a claim that Live Images uses a particular tool or that every AI system handles information in the same way.
Ask what the tool will do
Separate transcription, searching recorded answers, summarising content and generating new material. These are different activities, even if they appear in one software product. Ask which are proposed for your project and which are outside the workflow.
Then identify the input. Is the tool receiving a complete recording, a selected audio file, an existing transcript or a short extract? Will other project documents be included? Knowing the input helps your organisation assess the request without having to understand every detail of the editing software.
The relevant question is the actual workflow proposed by the supplier. A product name alone may not explain the account type, settings, integrations or terms that apply to its use.
Involve the right information owner early
Ask your privacy, security or authorised information-handling contact what needs review. Different concerns may apply to personal information, confidential commercial details and material belonging to a project client. Do not assume that one general confidentiality statement resolves every question.
The OAIC's guidance on commercially available AI products recommends due diligence about suitability, human oversight, privacy and security risks, and access to personal information. It also highlights the importance of understanding product terms and settings. Use the guidance with your responsible adviser rather than treating this article as a compliance assessment.
The buyer should not upload a sensitive sample to an unfamiliar tool merely to find out whether it works. First establish an authorised assessment route and what information, if any, can be used for that purpose.
Map the interview-data workflow
Ask the supplier to explain the proposed route in practical terms. You need enough detail for the appropriate reviewer to make a decision, not access to unrelated client systems or confidential supplier records.
| Workflow question | Record for this production |
|---|---|
| Activity and purpose | What the tool does and why that step is proposed |
| Source material | Recording, extract, transcript or other information involved |
| Processing route | Relevant product or service and the arrangement being proposed |
| Access | Which supplier personnel and external parties may receive the material |
| Further use | What the applicable terms say about training or other uses of inputs |
| Retention | Where relevant files remain and what happens after the task or project |
| Human review | Who checks the result before it informs the film or is shared |
| Buyer decision | Authorised, questions outstanding or alternative workflow requested |
Keep answers tied to the relevant version of the proposed process. “We use secure tools” does not identify the route. Conversely, a long software feature list may say very little about how your interview will be handled.
Where the supplier cannot yet confirm an answer, give the question an owner. Do not convert an assumption into an approval because the filming date is approaching.
Keep source access separate from final-film approval
An interviewee's contribution to a public film does not tell the project team what has been agreed about every processing step for the unused recording. Ask the responsible people to confirm the appropriate arrangements rather than extending a publication decision by assumption.
Also separate a working transcript from an approved publication asset. It may contain transcription errors, incomplete thoughts and material that the edit will exclude. Establish who needs to see it and why before circulating it widely for convenience.
Human transcription and manual editing still involve information handling. If your organisation requests a non-AI alternative, assess that route too. The useful outcome is an understandable, approved process, not a reassuring label attached to an otherwise unknown workflow.
Worked example: an approved film, an unreviewed upload
This example is illustrative and makes no claim about any supplier's software or practices.
A contractor's client approves a case-study interview for a public project film. During the longer recording, the participant also discusses an upcoming project that is not part of the planned story. The editor proposes sending the complete audio to an online transcription service.
The workflow map reveals that the buyer has assessed the intended film but has not reviewed that processing route. The information owner asks what material the tool needs and what arrangements would apply. Production is asked to assess an authorised alternative or a suitably limited input, rather than assuming the whole recording can be uploaded.
The decision is made before that transfer. The later film can still use the approved project account, while the source-handling question is resolved on its own facts. No particular technical solution or legal outcome is assumed.
Agree how a workflow change will be handled
If the supplier later proposes a different service or a new use of the material, identify when that needs to return to the relevant reviewer. Keep the process proportionate: the purpose is to avoid an unassessed change in handling, not to require approval of every routine edit action.
For a Live Images construction case study, include relevant information-handling requirements in your production enquiry. Describe the type of material and your review process without sending unnecessary sensitive content. Ask how the proposed workflow would meet the agreed requirements; no default AI use, data location or retention policy is asserted here.