"And the Award Goes to... Gen AI?
"
Group Presentation — Speaker Delivery Scripts (Revised)
7 Speakers · ~1 min 15–25 sec each · ~9 minutes total runtime
Speaker 1 — Introduction & Case Overview
Good morning, everyone. Today our group is analyzing the case "And the Award Goes to... Gen AI?"—a
communication dilemma at Days Health Tech, a healthcare technology firm generating $340 million in
annual revenue with roughly 1,200 employees.
Here is the setup. Tyler Ramirez, the Chief Marketing Officer, is preparing to present a successful
marketing campaign to the executive team on Monday. The campaign drove a 47% increase in qualified
leads for their remote patient monitoring platform and earned widespread industry acclaim. However,
right before the presentation, Jordan Chen—the marketing manager who led execution—calls Tyler with
a critical revelation: the team relied heavily on generative AI for content generation, creative ideation, and
market analysis. No one outside the execution team knows this—not the executive board, and not the
industry award committees.
Crucially, nothing has leaked externally yet. This is a pre-crisis disclosure, meaning Tyler possesses a
rare window to make the right decision before any public reputational fallout occurs.
Our presentation will walk through the operational context, stakeholder analysis, core communication
failures, risk and financial exposure, and actionable recommendations.
Speaker 2 — Background & Operational Context
To understand how Days Health Tech arrived at this decision point, we must look at the operational
context. The root cause of this dilemma is simple: Days Health Tech had no formal corporate policy
governing generative AI usage or attribution. When the marketing team faced intense time pressure on the
remote patient monitoring campaign, they turned to AI tools to accelerate their workflow.
It is important to note the team did not simply copy and paste AI outputs. They set the overall strategy,
directed the campaign, and reviewed and edited all final deliverables. However, the core creative
concepts, initial copy drafting, and underlying market analysis relied heavily on generative AI.
In the immediate term, this means the campaign as presented to executives and award bodies is inaccurate
in how credit is assigned. In the longer term, if this pattern of undisclosed AI use continued unchecked, it
would normalize a culture where attribution simply isn't taken seriously—a much harder habit to reverse
than a one-time disclosure.
Team members received special recognition, Tyler was praised for building an innovative department,
and the company formally submitted the work for industry awards. The achievement being celebrated was
not quite the achievement that actually occurred.
Speaker 3 — Stakeholder Analysis
This is a multi-layered stakeholder challenge, not a simple two-person dilemma. We'll focus on the four
stakeholders whose stakes are highest.
First, Jordan Chen, caught between protecting the team's hard work and maintaining personal integrity as
performance reviews and award announcements approach. Second, Tyler Ramirez, who now holds
information that could damage her credibility with the executive board if handled improperly.
Third, company executives and award committees, who have been rewarding and evaluating this work
based on inaccurate assumptions about how it was created.
Fourth—and most consequential given the industry—clients and patients. Days Health Tech operates in
healthcare, where authentic human oversight and truthfulness matter deeply. If patient-facing messaging
and targeting were shown to be machine-generated without disclosure, the resulting loss of trust could
extend well beyond a standard marketing controversy. We'll return to this stakeholder specifically in our
impact assessment.
Speaker 4 — Communication Analysis: Message Clarity &
Medium
Now let's apply our core communication analysis criteria, starting with message clarity and medium
appropriateness.
On message clarity: the external message—that this campaign demonstrated the team's exceptional
creative talent—was stated clearly and understood exactly as intended by executives. The failure wasn't
confusing language; it was clarity achieved through omission. The message was clear, but it was clearly
incomplete.
On medium, internally, Jordan's choice of a private, one-on-one phone call to Tyler was highly effective
—it created a confidential space, reduced defensiveness, and gave Tyler time to plan a response before
Monday.
Externally, the campaign's true development process was communicated through the same channels used
for any conventional creative work: quarterly reports, award submissions, and executive presentations.
None of these mediums were built to carry a "how this was made" disclosure, so a channel designed for
showcasing results ended up standing in for a channel that should have carried process transparency. That
mismatch—not just the absence of a policy—is the medium failure here.
Speaker 5 — Timing, Audience & Impact Assessment
On timing: Jordan's disclosure was strategically proactive. Raising this before the executive presentation,
performance reviews, and award decisions lets the company act preemptively rather than reactively.
On audience analysis: leadership failed to consider what executives, award judges, and healthcare clients
would need to know to evaluate the work's true nature—each of those audiences was given a materially
incomplete picture.
Turning to impact: on brand reputation, there is severe exposure if this surfaces externally after the fact,
alongside direct risk of award revocation. On customer and patient trust specifically—given Days Health
Tech's healthcare context—undisclosed AI involvement in patient-facing messaging and targeting risks a
deeper erosion of trust than a typical marketing misstep, since patients rely on this company for accuracy
and oversight in health-related communication.
Financially, the exposure is concrete: reworking or re-verifying campaign materials and the underlying
market analysis carries direct cost; award-related penalties or clawbacks are possible; and in a regulated
healthcare space, client or partner contracts may include representations about how patient data and
messaging are handled, which undisclosed AI use could put at risk. Internally, there's also a trust cost—
team members who knew and those who didn't now sit on uneven footing.
Speaker 6 — Actionable Recommendations
Based on this analysis, we propose four recommendations.
First, Training and Development: roll out mandatory AI-literacy and disclosure training for marketing and
communications staff, covering how to document AI involvement and when disclosure is required.
Second, a Crisis Communication Plan, built around proactive disclosure: rather than treat this as damage
control, Tyler should update Monday's presentation to transparently describe how the team used
generative AI to help achieve the 47% lead increase under tight deadlines. In parallel, the company
should pause pending award submissions until attribution can be reviewed and disclosed to award
committees.
Third, Feedback Mechanisms: deploy anonymous quarterly pulse checks on tool and software usage,
giving management realistic visibility into daily workflows without putting individual employees on the
spot.
Fourth, Monitoring and Evaluation: draft a formal AI usage and disclosure policy, co-owned by Legal and
Communications, with defined attribution tiers and routine audits of campaign deliverables.
Speaker 7 — Conclusion & Key Takeaways
In conclusion, this case is not about whether generative AI is good or bad—the campaign delivered
verified business results. It's about how a corporate policy vacuum let a legitimate professional
achievement be mischaracterized to executives, award bodies, and clients.
The core takeaway for corporate communication: transparency has to be built into policy, not left to
individual employee heroism. Jordan's choice to speak up before Monday's meeting—rather than after a
public leak—is exactly the proactive behavior institutional systems should encourage and reward, not just
tolerate.
For Tyler Ramirez, our recommendation is clear: pause the award submissions, reframe Monday's
presentation around human strategic direction powered by AI tools, and use this moment to institute the
AI governance policy Days Health Tech currently lacks. This protects the team's genuine contributions
while building the transparency the company—and its patients—need going forward. Thank you.