Requirements, Permissions & Approval Design for Robo Claw at Food-Assistance NGOs
Flesh out the workflow decided in the Discover step — target sites, food categories, and distribution-program scope, the Agent/Skill/Tool/Tool Policy, handling of expiration/storage-condition/allergy information, handling of personal/health information, read/write permissions, external transmission, human approval, food hygiene officer review, separation of duties, logs/audit trails, duplicate-execution/distribution prevention, and KPIs.
Who This Is For
Who This Is For
For the food-assistance lead, IT contact (including multi-hatting staff), food hygiene officer, and board members who decided on the target workflow in the Discover step.
What You'll Decide
What You'll Decide in This Step
In the Refine step, document the scope of target sites, food categories, and distribution programs, the classification of data involved, the systems to connect, read/write permissions, approval conditions, responsibility boundaries between the NGO, municipality, and food-donor company, separation of duties between staff and volunteers, and KPIs.
Industry Challenges
Challenges Specific to Food-Assistance NGOs and NPOs
Data classification isn't organized enough
In many cases, it's unclear what classification allergy/health information or a recipient's personal information falls under, or how far it can be used.
No established rules for responsibility boundaries between the NGO, municipality, and food-donor company
In some cases, the information-sharing scope and report approver aren't documented in donation contracts, outsourcing agreements, or partnership terms.
Ambiguous roles between staff and volunteers
Operations sometimes run without a clear division of roles among full-time staff, part-time staff, and volunteers helping with sorting and distribution.
Unclear accountability
In some cases, it's not organized who ultimately owns accountability for the results of using the AI agent's output.
Method
Implementation Steps
1. Organize As-Is/To-Be
Contrast the current food-assistance workflow with the target workflow after Robo Claw is rolled out.
2. Define target sites, food categories, and distribution programs
Clarify the scope of target sites, food categories (ambient, refrigerated, frozen, etc.), and distribution programs.
3. Design the Agent, Skill, and Tool
Design the Agent's role, the Skill for the workflow procedure, and the scope of the Tool that performs system operations.
4. Confirm handling of expiration, storage-condition, and allergy information
Organize the source, update method, and accuracy-verification method for best-by/use-by dates, storage conditions (temperature range, etc.), and allergy/ingredient information.
5. Confirm the purpose of use and legal basis for personal/health information
Check whether recipients' personal or health information is handled, and confirm the purpose of use, consent, and legal basis.
6. Design the Tool Policy and read/write permissions
Define, as Policy, which operations the Tool may perform (read/write, Allow/Deny) and whether external transmission or finalizing distribution is allowed.
7. Confirm responsibility boundaries between the NGO, municipality, and food-donor company
Confirm data-sharing scope and the report-approval process with stakeholders, based on donation contracts, outsourcing specs, and partnership agreements.
8. Define separation of duties between staff, volunteers, and the food hygiene officer
Separate access permissions by full-time staff, part-time staff, volunteers, and the food hygiene officer.
9. Define human approval and food hygiene officer review
Define the approver for results using the output, and the escalation path to the food hygiene officer when a decision is needed on food safety, distribution approval, or disposal approval.
10. Define logging, retention, duplicate-execution/distribution prevention, and KPIs
Define the scope and retention period for operation logs and audit trails, measures to prevent duplicate execution or distribution, and KPIs for measuring impact.
Data & Systems
Data and Systems Used
Human-in-the-loop
Where Human Approval Is Required
- Clarify, by role, the reviewer for output leading to food safety, distribution approval, disposal approval, or allergy suitability
- Get specialist and legal review of the scope for handling personal and health information
- Clarify the approver for output involving reports or notices to municipalities, food-donor companies, or donors
- Get the food-assistance lead's approval for granting permissions that span staff, volunteers, and the food hygiene officer
Measurement
KPI
In the Refine step, define candidate KPIs to validate in Build & Validate.
Target level for donated-food list organization time
Target time for organizing the donated-food list
Lead time to approval
Time from output creation to human approval
Permission-violation/duplicate-distribution-candidate detection count
Count of detected operations exceeding the defined permission scope, and detected duplicate-distribution candidates
Checklist
Requirements-Definition Checklist
- Target sites, food categories, and distribution programs (included and excluded) are documented
- Input data and outputs (match candidates, draft distribution plans, report drafts) are defined
- The classification of data involved (expiration, storage condition, allergy, personal information, health information, etc.) and its purpose of use, consent, and legal basis are confirmed
- Access permissions are defined separately for read and write
- Responsibility boundaries (data-sharing scope, report-approval process) between the NGO, municipality, and food-donor company are confirmed
- Separation of duties between staff, volunteers, and the food hygiene officer is defined
- The escalation contact and flow to the food hygiene officer are defined
- Accountability for the results of using the output is defined
- The scope and retention period for operation logs/audit trails, and measures to prevent duplicate execution/distribution, are defined
- KPIs for measuring impact are defined
Pitfalls
Common Pitfalls
Skipping data-classification checks
Proceeding without confirming data classification causes major rework later on around handling allergy/health information and personal information.
Proceeding with an ambiguous approver
Naming an approver by individual rather than by role causes operations to stall when that person transfers or leaves.
Not documenting where the final decision rests
Responsibility boundaries need to be documented so AI's output is never treated as-is as the decision on distribution, disposal, or allergy suitability.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Who should take part in requirements definition?
We recommend at minimum the food-assistance lead, IT contact, food hygiene officer, and site manager take part. If personal or health information is involved, legal and specialist review is also needed.
What is a Tool Policy?
It's a documented rule for what operations the Tool may perform (read/write, whether external transmission is allowed, whether finalizing distribution/disposal is allowed, etc.). Robo Claw designs a Tool Policy per workflow.
How granular should separation of duties be?
At minimum, we recommend separating into four groups: full-time staff, part-time staff, volunteers, and the food hygiene officer. If the number of sites or food categories grows, also consider separation by site or category.
How do we design prevention of duplicate execution or distribution?
Design a combination of execution IDs, idempotency checks, and human final review so the same distribution plan or report isn't generated or sent more than once. See the Build & Validate and Deploy & Operate articles for details.
Let's map out your requirements, permissions, and approval design together.
We can review target sites, data classification, responsibility boundaries, and approval structure, and discuss requirements definition with you on our official landing page.