- Who runs it
- Cabinet Office
- Can it affect people?
- Mostly indirectly. It is described as a tool for staff and internal work.
- Possible rights impact: Internal operations
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- Assist - public register entry / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 30 July 2026
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - browse the register / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
A generative-AI writing assistant for government communications professionals, used for brainstorming, first drafts, and reviewing work.
the story
A communicator facing a blank page can ask for a first draft, then check, rewrite, and approve it using the same professional standards as any other draft.
Facts to check
- 01
The tool is limited to government communications work.
- 02
Its retrieval library contains approved communication frameworks and guidance.
- 03
It is not designed to make automated decisions.
If this affects someone
Assist can shape the first version of public information, but the published record limits it to support work rather than automated decision making.
Users are responsible for checking and editing generated material before it is used. The register entry does not set out a separate output-audit schedule.
The record marks appeals as not applicable because Assist does not make decisions about people.
Government communication best practices, guidance, frameworks, and material from the Modern Communications Operating Model are used for retrieval.
Sources and further reading
Based on an individual entry in the GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records. Unknowns are stated plainly instead of being filled with guesses.
Plain-language text was checked against the linked sources. Older editorial records do not retain model or prompt logs, so this is explanation, never evidence.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Cabinet Office
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 48 days ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported15 days agoSubstantialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
- Public register record48 days agoSubstantialAdded from the GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.