Can you put a customer's drawing into ChatGPT? What OEM purchase terms and AI addendums now say

An estimator gets a 40-page RFQ package with a Friday due date. Pasting the drawing notes into a chatbot to pull out tolerances, materials and finishes would save an hour. Whether that is allowed depends on paper the estimator has probably never read: the customer’s purchase terms, and more and more often an AI addendum attached to them.

On Oct. 27, 2026 we read 10 published purchase terms and supplier AI documents from OEM buyers that 50 to 500 person shops sell to. Five carry explicit AI clauses. Four of them (L3Harris, BAE Systems, 3M and GE Vernova) bar putting the buyer’s data into AI tools without its written approval or, in 3M’s case, outside tools 3M has approved; GE Vernova also allows properly anonymized input. The fifth, Forvia, requires a contract term or written consent before AI output goes into what you deliver. The other five say nothing about AI in the text we read, but each limits what you can do with the customer’s information. So the working answer for a job shop or component maker is no, not until you have checked that customer’s terms and put an internal rule in place.

What do OEM purchase terms say about AI now?

Four of the five AI-clause documents were issued or revised in 2026.

L3Harris form LGL-50.F2 (Rev. 02/2026), its terms for commercial items bought under a US government contract, restricts generative AI twice. Section 15(g) says “Seller shall not input into any Generative AI nor provide as prompts to any Generative AI any Buyer data, software, or information (including but not limited to Buyer Intellectual Property and classified, regulated, or personally identifiable information) without Buyer’s prior written approval.” The same section requires approval before AI is used to produce anything delivered to L3Harris, and “Seller shall ensure a human substantively reviews such artificial intelligence generated content.” The warranty in section 9(c) goes further. It bars the seller from giving Buyer Proprietary Information to any generative AI “accessible to any person other than Buyer and Seller,” and it also covers AI accessible only to the two companies “if the Generative AI will maintain any persistent copy of such information.” A private company account does not get you off the hook if the tool keeps the data.

BAE Systems Standard Conditions of Purchase (2025 Edition Version 2), effective Sept. 29, 2026, is the strictest of the set. Clause 10.10 bars suppliers from using, inputting or summarizing purchaser information in connection with any AI system “in any way whatsoever,” and from using AI “in any way in the provision of the Deliverables,” unless BAE Systems gives prior written consent and appropriate terms are agreed in a Special Condition. That Special Condition must flow down to subcontractors. These conditions are governed by English law (clause 35.1), so a US shop selling to a US BAE Systems unit should check the terms on its own PO.

The 3M Artificial Intelligence Exhibit (Revised October 2026) works from an approved list. Section 2.3 permits only “Approved AI System(s)” and bars uploading 3M Data into anything else without 3M’s written approval. Section 2.2 separately bars sharing 3M Data with “any external AI System,” even when using an approved one, and section 2.4(a) says “Supplier will not use 3M Data to train, retrain, fine-tune, or improve any AI System or a similar or competing product.” Section 2.6 bars keeping 3M Data put into an AI system, and section 1.3, which covers output from the supplier’s own staff using AI, says “AI Output is deemed 3M Data.” A quote summary your tool writes from a 3M drawing is, under this exhibit, 3M’s data.

GE Vernova’s Standards for Supplier’s Provision or Use of AI (V2.0, Aug. 3, 2026) is the one most job shops could build a policy from. Two rules sit in its general provisions, which apply to every supplier. Section 6 says “All AI tools used in connection with GE Vernova work shall be configured in no-train and no-reuse modes,” with written confirmation on request. Section 7 says “Use of any third-party AI Model requires GE Vernova’s prior written approval.” The disclosure that opens section 7 is framed around the models behind the products or services you supply, but that sentence carries no such limit. Read as written, running GE Vernova work through a third-party chatbot may itself need GE Vernova’s written approval. Section IV covers suppliers whose work is not itself AI, which means most machine shops and molders. It bars putting GE Vernova confidential information into an AI tool without approval or proper anonymizing (section 22), requires telling GE Vernova when AI helped prepare a deliverable (section 21), and requires the supplier to keep “written policies prohibiting the use of Shadow AI,” train staff at least annually and monitor for it (section 23).

Forvia’s North America General Purchasing Conditions (January 2025), from the automotive Tier 1, focuses on what you deliver. Section 9.14.1 says supplier work results may contain AI and AI output only “if contractually agreed with the Company” or with prior written consent, and section 21.2.5 gives Forvia the rights in AI-generated outputs, including prompts. We could read only through section 21.3, so we cannot say what its confidentiality section adds.

Which of your customers have an AI clause or AI addendum, and how do you find out?

Silence is still common. RTX’s non-product terms (June 2025 version), Honeywell’s General Terms and Conditions of Purchase (header “Rev JUL-2026”; the page footers read JUL-2025), BMT Aerospace USA’s purchasing terms (July 1, 2024), Evac Group’s US purchase terms (dated 19.9.2025) and PCG’s Supplier Manual for Camaco and Amvian (Rev M, May 30, 2023) had no AI language in the text we read. We read the BMT, Evac and PCG documents in full; the RTX and Honeywell reads stopped before the end of each file (partway into Attachment B and section 55, respectively). We did not open RTX’s product terms.

Ten documents are a small sample, but in ours the 2026 revisions add AI language, and the older documents do not address it yet.

Buyer	Document and date	AI clause	Buyer data into AI	Training on buyer data	AI in deliverables	Supplier AI policy required
L3Harris	LGL-50.F2, Rev. 02/2026	Yes	Written approval required (15(g))	Barred unless agreed in writing (9(c))	Written approval plus human review (15(g))	Not stated
BAE Systems	Standard Conditions of Purchase, 2025 Ed. v2, eff. Sept. 29, 2026 (English law)	Yes	Barred without consent and Special Condition (10.10)	Covered by the general bar (10.10)	Barred without consent and Special Condition (10.10)	Not stated
3M	AI Exhibit, Revised October 2026	Yes	Approved AI systems only (2.3); no external AI (2.2)	Barred without written approval under an SOW (2.4)	AI output is 3M Data, owned by 3M (1.3, 2.6)	Not stated
GE Vernova	AI Appendix V2.0, Aug. 3, 2026	Yes	Approval or anonymizing required (22); third-party AI models need approval (7)	Barred; no-train, no-reuse modes (6)	Disclosure required (21)	Yes (23)
Forvia	NA General Purchasing Conditions, January 2025	Yes	Silent in text read	Silent in text read	Contract or written consent (9.14.1); Forvia owns outputs (21.2.5)	Not stated
RTX	Non-Product Terms, June 2025	No (text read)	Silent; bars secondary use (20.3.3)	Silent	Silent	No (text read)
Honeywell	GTCs of Purchase, header Rev JUL-2026	No (text read)	Silent; use only for the PO (37.B)	Silent	Silent	No (text read)
BMT Aerospace USA	Purchasing Terms, July 1, 2024	No	Silent; no use or transfer to third parties (17.3)	Silent	Silent	No
Evac Group (USA)	Purchase GTCs, 19.9.2025	No	Silent; no third-party disclosure without approval (13.1)	Silent	Silent	No
PCG (Camaco, Amvian)	Supplier Manual Rev M, May 30, 2023	No	Silent; drawings confidential (1.3)	Silent	Silent	No

What 10 OEM purchase terms say about AI. Five of the 10 carry AI clauses, and each puts the buyer in control of when AI touches its data or the supplier’s deliverables. Documents read Oct. 27, 2026; our reading, not legal advice.

Checking your own customers takes an afternoon. Pull the terms cited on your last PO from each of your top accounts, search each PDF for “AI,” “artificial intelligence,” “generative” and “machine learning,” and look on the supplier portal for a separate AI exhibit or addendum, since 3M and GE Vernova publish theirs as standalone documents. Record the form number and revision you read, because these change.

Does “no AI clause” mean it is allowed?

No. Every one of the five silent documents restricts use of the customer’s information. Honeywell’s section 37.B says its confidential information “may not be used by Supplier for any purpose other than for performing this Purchase Order.” BMT’s section 17.3 says “Supplier shall not use, duplicate, or transfer the Confidential Information and Intellectual Property of Buyer” to any affiliate or third party except to meet the order. RTX’s section 20.3.3 bars “secondary or other use (e.g., for the purpose of data mining) of RTX Information.” Evac’s section 13.1 bars sharing confidential information with a third party without written approval, and PCG’s manual lists designs and drawings among the information suppliers must protect.

Our position is that a public chatbot that may store or train on what you paste is a third party. If the terms bar disclosure to third parties, assume they bar pasting a drawing into that tool, whether or not the word “AI” appears.

What about ITAR and controlled drawings?

Export control sits on top of the contract. A law firm’s summary from Dechert (Jan. 8, 2020), which is secondary to the rule itself, explains that ITAR section 120.54, an interim final rule issued Dec. 26, 2019 and effective March 25, 2020, says sending or storing unclassified technical data is not an export when it is end-to-end encrypted with FIPS 140-2 compliant modules or security at least comparable to 128-bit AES, and not intentionally sent to or stored in a section 126.1 country, an EAR Country Group D:5 country or Russia. Per the same summary, giving a foreign person the ability to decrypt the data is a release.

An AI tool has to read a drawing unencrypted to work on it, so in our reading that carve-out offers no cover for putting ITAR-controlled drawings into a public AI service. If you quote ITAR work, ask export counsel before any controlled data touches an AI tool. This article is not legal advice, and contracts vary from customer to customer and PO to PO.

In your industry

Defense and aerospace shops face the tightest terms. L3Harris requires approval for inputs and for AI-generated deliverables, BAE Systems’ conditions bar AI in the work itself without consent, and ITAR sits on top.

Automotive suppliers should read for deliverables as much as data. Forvia’s clause decides whether AI output can appear in your work results and who owns it, which matters for PPAP documents and reports.

Industrial OEMs such as 3M and GE Vernova have written the most operational rules. In our reading, a shop that meets GE Vernova’s section IV has most of what the others ask for.

What should a shop’s AI policy say?

One page is enough, and GE Vernova’s appendix gives you the outline. Name the approved AI tools and turn on the settings that stop the vendor from training on or keeping your inputs. Where a customer’s terms require approval of the tool itself, as GE Vernova’s section 7 does for any third-party AI model, get that approval before the tool touches the customer’s work. Say who may put what into them: your own data and public marketing copy, yes; customer drawings, specs, pricing and RFQ packages, only where that customer’s terms allow it or the customer has approved in writing. Require a person to check anything AI produces before it reaches a customer. Log when AI helped on a deliverable, so you can answer a disclosure request. Train estimating, sales and marketing once a year.

Before signing with any AI quoting or document tool, get written answers on whether it trains on your data, how long it keeps uploads and where the data is processed. A tool that trains on uploads or keeps them indefinitely conflicts with the 3M and GE Vernova terms and with L3Harris’s persistent-copy test.

What to do first

1. Adopt an interim rule today: no customer drawing, spec, price or RFQ file goes into any AI tool until we have checked that customer’s terms.
2. Pull the current purchase terms and any AI exhibit for your top 10 accounts, with form number, revision and date.
3. Mark each one: allowed with approved tools, allowed only with written approval, or silent (treat as not allowed).
4. Where approval is required and the time saved is real, ask the buyer in writing, naming the tool and its no-train and retention settings.
5. Split RFQ packages at intake. Estimators can still use AI on what is yours, such as rate tables, routing notes and boilerplate, without the customer’s files.
6. Write the one-page policy and add an AI-terms check to new customer onboarding.