Capture the requested outcome clearly
Ask what the requester wants to happen differently and which task it would improve. Record an example of the current result and the desired result. Avoid reducing the request to a technology name or an instruction to make the assistant smarter. Identify the relevant workflow and requester, then check whether the issue is a defect against agreed behaviour or a proposed addition. That distinction helps the owner choose the right review process without deciding contractual responsibility in the change record.
Compare it with the approved scope
Link the request to the current project brief, permitted actions and acceptance conditions. State which boundaries would change, including users, information sources or external actions. A request to include another document collection may require different access decisions even if the chat screen stays the same. Do not assume the original approval covers related departments automatically. If the expected behaviour was never defined, record that uncertainty and have the owner resolve it before treating either interpretation as established.
Assess the operational work it creates
Ask the delivery team to identify affected components, dependencies and testing. Ask the business owner who will review outputs, handle exceptions and support the changed process. Include training or updated instructions where needed. Distinguish an initial effort estimate from an agreed commitment. Avoid presenting a feature as free merely because the visible interface change looks small. Record what is known and which questions need investigation before the owner can decide whether to proceed.
Choose a recorded outcome
The authorised owner may accept the change, ask for a limited investigation, defer it or decline it. Record the reason and conditions so the same suggestion does not repeatedly re-enter delivery without context. An accepted investigation permits discovery work, not automatic release of the proposed feature. If timing or cost needs agreement, use the project existing approval process. Keep delivery staff working from the latest approved scope rather than a mixture of meeting notes and unreviewed messages.
Test a fictional new-source request
In a fictional project, a document assistant supports one operations team. A manager asks to add a restricted staff collection. The team records the new audience and access implications, prepares a limited assessment and pauses implementation of that addition. The relevant owner decides which material, if any, can be included. Only the accepted version moves into development and testing. The example checks scope control; it does not assume that technically connecting a folder makes its contents appropriate to use.
Verify the implemented change and close the request
Compare the delivered behaviour with the approved request and repeat affected acceptance cases. Include work that should remain unchanged. Record the version, evidence and owner acceptance before release through the established process. Update staff instructions and identify any remaining follow-up. A closed change request should mean the defined change was checked and its outcome recorded, not simply that code was merged or a configuration saved. If the result differs materially, reopen the decision rather than rewriting the original request to match it.