DOCA.7:5.3 - A model is the subject, not automatically the client

In a constructed AI case, an authorized operations team asks a separate advisory arrangement whether to tune a model, change its retrieval support, or alter human–AI allocation. The team receives the advice; the changed model or composite arrangement is the subject. The advisory service still needs its own scope and qualified technical inputs.

An evaluation covers configuration A, while one proposed direction changes tools and oversight to B. The useful return keeps B’s evaluation and safety premises unqualified while retaining the supported scope of A. Select a B-result request only when its obtainable contribution warrants acquisition; neither the limit nor a request supplies a deployment recommendation. The adviser’s separate use of a drafting tool changes neither that gap nor the client’s information-use restrictions.

For contrast, “tell this unmanaged biological lineage which direction it should choose” supplies no lineage-local recipient or chooser. Return that attribution gap to the evolutionary account. A research team asking about a proposed intervention is a different recipient-owned case requiring its scientific, ethical, safety, and governance basis.