AI CONSULTING & AUTOMATION / A PRACTICAL ANSWER
Where should human review sit in an AI workflow?
The short answer
Put human review where it can meaningfully prevent or correct consequential mistakes. A reviewer needs the information, authority, time and interface to judge the output. Adding an approval button without those conditions can create the appearance of control while leaving the person unable to assess what the system has done.
What to establish
Identify the decisions that require judgement and the consequences of getting them wrong. Show the reviewer the relevant source, uncertainty and proposed action. Define what must be checked, how to correct it and when the workflow should stop or escalate.
How to assess readiness
Evaluate review effort as part of the pilot. Check whether people are approving automatically or missing important errors. Keep responsibility and fallback explicit, and avoid expanding the system's authority simply because a demonstration seemed convenient.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE / NOT A CLIENT RESULT
Make it concrete.
A draft customer response can be useful when the staff member can inspect the underlying request and edit the proposed wording before sending. Reviewing only an unexplained confidence label would provide a much weaker basis for approval.
Before you commission
- Place review before consequential actions.
- Give reviewers context and correction tools.
- Test review quality and workload in realistic conditions.
A plain-text worksheet. Downloading does not send us your details.
Further reading
FROM THE QUESTION TO THE WORK
A useful next step.
Bring the decision, the existing situation and the information you have. We can help define a scope before you commit to a wider project.
Explore the relevant service