Organizations adopting artificial intelligence are increasingly writing down what the technology should and should not do, according to three practitioners who spoke at the Midwest AI Summit and were featured in the latest Practical AI podcast episode. The talks, the second part of a special series, focus less on model benchmarks than on the governance questions that arise once AI moves from pilot projects into daily operations: who decides what AI may handle, where the boundaries sit, and when a person must stay in the loop. Don Barger of the International Mission Board described how his organization created an AI charter, a written document that defined the uses it would pursue and the ones it would rule out. Mark Lay of Noblis outlined four decisions leaders face when managing AI across an organization, including how much authority to delegate, who is accountable when a system gets something wrong, and how to deal with the technical debt that builds up when tools are adopted quickly. Darren Taillie of AeroCore Technologies walked through his team's use of AI agents, text-to-SQL tools that let staff query company data in plain language, and vision models that help automate the verification of work orders. The common thread is that the speakers judge AI by where it is placed and who answers for it, rather than by what it can do in a demonstration. The episode does not provide cost figures or independent measurements of the outcomes described, and the accounts reflect each speaker's own organization. For Australian businesses and professionals, the practical lessons are modest: a short written policy on approved and prohibited AI uses, a named owner for each AI-assisted process, and human sign-off on decisions that affect customers or safety are low-cost steps worth considering. Text-to-SQL tools in particular need read-only access and clear data permissions, and any use of AI on personal information should be checked against the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles. The episode does not discuss Australian law, so it does not change the regulatory position here.