Most sanctioned-tools policies fail the same way: a list nobody can find, criteria nobody understands, and a request path slower than just using the tool. This page builds the version that works, and shows how an audit turns it into a number.
Measure your sanctioned share freeSanctioned is a contract state, not a mood. A tool earns the label when four conditions hold at once.
The organization pays for the business or enterprise tier, not employees expensing consumer plans.
Why: data protections live in paid tiers. Sanctioning the free tier sanctions its terms too.
The contract or terms state no training on your content, with the verdict's check date recorded.
Why: 85.5% of tools say nothing about training. Silence cannot be sanctioned; a dated commitment can.
Accounts are provisioned and deprovisioned centrally, never personal signups with work email.
Why: offboarding. A sanctioned tool that survives departures is shadow AI with a receipt.
Someone owns the renewal, the terms re-check and the "should this stay sanctioned" question.
Why: verdicts drift. Ownerless entries rot on the list until an auditor finds them first.
Everything not meeting all four is unsanctioned. Not evil, not banned, just unmeasured, which is exactly what the audit's sanctioned split quantifies.
Lists built from vendor brochures get ignored. Lists built from what staff already chose get adopted, because they legalize the popular.
Run a full audit and sort the tool table by user count. The top of that column is your candidate list, pre-validated by adoption. The walkthrough gets you there in an afternoon.
Push each popular tool through the four gates. Tools that pass go on the list; tools that fail get an enterprise-tier negotiation or a stated no with a reason.
One page: the list, each tool's approved uses, and the request path. The reasons matter; "no-training terms, checked on this date" educates while it governs.
Paste your sanctioned list into the audit and every report splits reality against it. That split is the only honest adoption metric.
| What the split shows | Reading | Move |
|---|---|---|
| High sanctioned share, few unsanctioned tools | The list matches reality. Governance is working. | Hold cadence; spot-check verdict dates. |
| Popular tools missing from the list | The list lags adoption; staff voted with usage. | Gate the top unsanctioned tools this month. |
| Sanctioned tools with near-zero usage | You bought what nobody wanted. | Ask the teams why before renewal, not after. |
| Unsanctioned twins of sanctioned tools | The sanctioned option is worse or unknown. | Fix the tool or the awareness, then re-measure. |
The sanctioned list you provide is used for the split in your report only. Uploads are read once and discarded; reports live 90 days, deletable earlier.
Four deaths we see repeatedly, each preventable by design.
Six months to approve one chatbot means staff decided five months ago. Antidote: the two-day request SLA, with a provisional "controlled trial" state for hard cases.
"No AI" reads as "no asking". Usage continues, minus the visibility. Antidote: a real list with real tools on it, so compliance has a destination.
The list still names a tool that changed its terms last spring. Antidote: owners per entry plus quarterly re-audits; changed verdicts between runs are review triggers.
A perfect list nobody can find governs nothing. Antidote: the list lives where work happens, linked from the tools' own request-denied pages if you block.
The sample report shows the split and the per-tool sanctioned column exactly as your board would see them, on sample data.
Approve capabilities, then name the tool that fills each. It keeps the list stable while brands churn.
Five to ten covers most organizations. Each entry costs an owner, a renewal and a terms watch, so size the list to your maintenance capacity.
Rarely. Training protections and admin controls live in paid tiers; sanctioning a free tier endorses terms you cannot rely on.
Then the organization decides with open eyes: accept the stated terms in writing, or block with the reason published. Both beat silent tolerance.
The audit's sanctioned split, quarterly. Rising sanctioned share with falling unsanctioned tool count is the success curve.
One named owner overall, typically in security or IT, plus per-entry owners for renewals and terms re-checks. Committees advise; owners decide.
Publish the reason, offer the sanctioned alternative, and block only what stays risky. The ordering argument lives on detect before you block.
The audit hands you the candidate list, the risk context and the measurement loop. The four gates do the rest.
Run the free audit