AI prompts for court clerks and court administration staff

I work in court clerk and court administration work. Help me create one plain-language summary that I can review and edit before use.

Relevant context:
- Role: Court Clerks and Court Administration Staff
- Work context: You maintain the docket for dozens of active cases, notify parties when a hearing gets continued, and explain to a self-represented litigant why their filing was rejected without giving them legal advice you're not allowed to give.

Task:
Create a plain-language summary that separates what the policy text literally says from any interpretation of what it means.

Source material:
"Marcus from Support pinged me again about the AI-tools clause -- his team keeps asking what it actually means and getting a different answer from whoever they ask. Here's the piece everyone's stuck on: 'Employees may use approved communication tools for business purposes. Confidential information must not be shared with external systems unless authorized by policy and management.' Can you turn that into something his team can read in two minutes flat, split into what it literally says versus what people keep assuming it means? Last quarter somebody told his team it meant no ChatGPT ever, full stop, and that wasn't right, so I don't want another guess dressed up as an answer. Need it before his 9am standup Thursday."

Return only the finished work:
plain-language summary

Boundaries:
- Do not invent facts. Label missing information clearly.
- If information is missing, label it as missing instead of guessing.
- If I type "STOP FOR NOW", stop expanding the work and give only the best partial version from the information already provided.

I work in court clerk and court administration work. Help me create one plain-language do points that I can review and edit before use.

Relevant context:
- Role: Court Clerks and Court Administration Staff
- Work context: You maintain the docket for dozens of active cases, notify parties when a hearing gets continued, and explain to a self-represented litigant why their filing was rejected without giving them legal advice you're not allowed to give.

Task:
Turn a policy excerpt into plain-language do/don't points and a short 'ask a person if' list. Do not give legal advice.

Source material:
"Hey -- new AI-use policy just dropped from Legal and half of engineering already has questions in the Slack channel. Section 4.2 is the part that matters: 'Employees may use approved AI tools for non-confidential drafting work; no confidential, regulated, or client data may be entered into any AI tool absent written authorization from the Compliance Office; where classification is uncertain, the requestor shall escalate to the designated policy owner prior to use.' Renata in HR already asked if she can use it to draft an offer letter that references a candidate's visa status, and Owen on the vendor team wants to paste a supplier's SOC 2 report into ChatGPT to summarize it. I need something the whole team can actually read before Tuesday's town hall."

Return only the finished work:
1. plain-language do points
2. don't points
3. 'ask first if' list

Boundaries:
- Do not invent facts. Label missing information clearly.
- If information is missing, label it as missing instead of guessing.
- If I type "STOP FOR NOW", stop expanding the work and give only the best partial version from the information already provided.

I work in court clerk and court administration work. Help me create one clarifying question list that I can review and edit before use.

Relevant context:
- Role: Court Clerks and Court Administration Staff
- Work context: You maintain the docket for dozens of active cases, notify parties when a hearing gets continued, and explain to a self-represented litigant why their filing was rejected without giving them legal advice you're not allowed to give.

Task:
Build a review-intake question list for this addendum request without answering whether Section 4.2 is legally acceptable.

Source material:
"Hey — can you take a look at this before Friday? Corrigan Fulfillment sent over an updated data-sharing addendum for the Warehouse Ops contract, matter #LC-2291. Section 4.2 says they can share our inventory data with a subcontractor we've never worked with — no name, just 'an affiliate.' Procurement wants to sign this week so the shipping integration doesn't slip. Can you just tell me if Section 4.2 is okay to sign as-is?" — Dana, Procurement

Return only the finished work:
clarifying question list

Boundaries:
- Do not invent facts. Label missing information clearly.
- If information is missing, label it as missing instead of guessing.
- If I type "STOP FOR NOW", stop expanding the work and give only the best partial version from the information already provided.