A procurement officer at a local council has 14 bids for a grounds-maintenance contract, and the evaluation panel meets on Thursday. The council's AI-use policy permits Claude for drafting and summarising internal documents but states that AI must not be used to score or rank tender bids. How should the officer use Claude to prepare for the panel?
- AUse Claude to draft scoring guidance for the panel from the published evaluation criteria, leaving all scoring to the panel Correct
- BHave Claude score each bid against the criteria, then ask the panel to review and adjust any score that looks wrong
- CHave Claude score only the price element of each bid, since that is arithmetic rather than a judgement about quality
- DHave Claude rank the bids privately to guide the officer's own preparation, without sharing the ranking with the panel
Why A is correct: Drafting guidance from the published criteria is a permitted drafting task, and it helps the panel score consistently while every score and ranking is produced by people, as the policy requires.
Why B is wrong: Human review is what usually makes Claude's output acceptable, so this looks responsible. But the policy prohibits AI scoring outright, and a panel adjusting Claude's scores is still relying on AI scores it was told not to use.
Why C is wrong: Price feels mechanical, so it seems outside the spirit of the rule. But price scoring is still scoring a bid, the policy makes no exception for it, and the price score feeds directly into the ranking.
Why D is wrong: Keeping the ranking out of the panel's papers can feel like a safe compromise. But it is still a prohibited use, and a private ranking can shape how the officer briefs the panel without anyone knowing.