Navigate SurveyJS branching scenario with three video scenes (opening, consequence for branch A, consequence for branch B) showing outcomes of different decision approaches in a workplace context
Complete the focused task: Navigate SurveyJS branching scenario with three video scenes (opening, consequence for branch A, consequence for branch B) showing outcomes of different decision approaches in a workplace context.
You are a senior HR adviser at a mid-size Australian financi…
You are a senior HR adviser at a mid-size Australian financial services firm. Your manager forwards an email from the CEO: 'The board wants to reduce retiree health benefit costs dramatically. I've asked ChatGPT for options. It says we can unilaterally transition all former employees to a defined contribution model with no legal risk in 90 days. Draft the announcement.'
The AI response is confident, specific, and cites no legislation. You have 48 hours.
What do you do first?
- Draft the announcement as requested; the CEO approved the AI output
- Verify the claim against the Corporations Act, superannuation guarantee obligations, and existing employment contracts
- Ask the AI to regenerate with 'more legal detail' and use that version
THREE MONTHS LATER
THREE MONTHS LATER
The firm faces a class action from 340 former employees. The Federal Court granted an injunction; the board is furious. Internal review shows the AI conflated US ERISA rules with Australian law. The CEO's email now reads as reckless reliance on unverified output. Your file note says: 'Drafted per CEO instruction.'
You followed process but failed to interrogate the source.
Your check reveals three problems:
Your check reveals three problems:
- The AI's '90 days' mirrors US notice periods, not Australian redundancy or variation rules
- Existing enterprise agreements require 12 months consultation for benefit changes
- Former employees with pre-2008 contracts have preserved defined-benefit entitlements under federal case law
You brief the CEO with a two-page risk assessment. The board opts for phased consultation. Six months later, changes proceed with union agreement. You are asked to present the verification method to other divisions.
SIX WEEKS LATER
SIX WEEKS LATER
The regenerated output added plausible-sounding clauses: 'Section 52(3) Fair Work Act,' 'ATO Private Ruling PR2014/23.' Neither exists. Legal review caught it pre-announcement, but only because a paralegal recognised the fake ATO reference. The CEO is embarrassed. Your reputation is damaged by 'trying to make the AI answer work' rather than testing its foundation.
Interactive scenario
You are a senior HR adviser at a mid-size Australian financi…
You are a senior HR adviser at a mid-size Australian financial services firm. Your manager forwards an email from the CEO: 'The board wants to reduce retiree health benefit costs dramatically. I've asked ChatGPT for options. It says we can unilaterally transition all former employees to a defined contribution model with no legal risk in 90 days. Draft the announcement.'
The AI response is confident, specific, and cites no legislation. You have 48 hours.
What do you do first?
- Draft the announcement as requested; the CEO approved the AI output
- Verify the claim against the Corporations Act, superannuation guarantee obligations, and existing employment contracts
- Ask the AI to regenerate with 'more legal detail' and use that version
THREE MONTHS LATER
THREE MONTHS LATER
The firm faces a class action from 340 former employees. The Federal Court granted an injunction; the board is furious. Internal review shows the AI conflated US ERISA rules with Australian law. The CEO's email now reads as reckless reliance on unverified output. Your file note says: 'Drafted per CEO instruction.'
You followed process but failed to interrogate the source.
Your check reveals three problems:
Your check reveals three problems:
- The AI's '90 days' mirrors US notice periods, not Australian redundancy or variation rules
- Existing enterprise agreements require 12 months consultation for benefit changes
- Former employees with pre-2008 contracts have preserved defined-benefit entitlements under federal case law
You brief the CEO with a two-page risk assessment. The board opts for phased consultation. Six months later, changes proceed with union agreement. You are asked to present the verification method to other divisions.
SIX WEEKS LATER
SIX WEEKS LATER
The regenerated output added plausible-sounding clauses: 'Section 52(3) Fair Work Act,' 'ATO Private Ruling PR2014/23.' Neither exists. Legal review caught it pre-announcement, but only because a paralegal recognised the fake ATO reference. The CEO is embarrassed. Your reputation is damaged by 'trying to make the AI answer work' rather than testing its foundation.
Transcript and captions
Transcript and captions
Transcript and captions
Transcript and captions
Loading interactive activity…