Human approval works only when a reviewer can understand, change or reject the proposed action. A confirmation button without context provides little practical control.
Show the action and its consequences
For a fictional support assistant, display the recipient, proposed message, attachments and supporting sources. Separate drafting from sending. If the draft changes after approval, the earlier authorisation should not silently cover the revised content.
| Element | Reviewer's question |
|---|---|
| Action | What will be sent or changed? |
| Scope | Which accounts or recipients are affected? |
| Evidence | What supports this proposal? |
| Alternatives | Can I edit, reject or defer it? |
Avoid approval fatigue
Group comparable work while keeping exceptions visible. Track corrections and rejections rather than treating every approval click as evidence of quality. If everything is accepted without review, investigate workload and presentation before concluding that the model is reliable.
Can approval later be removed?
Only through an explicit decision based on observed errors, consequences and recovery controls. Some actions remain consequential even when suggestions are usually correct. Preserve scope limits, an activity history and a way to stop processing. Autonomy is a product-risk decision, not an automatic reward for a high average evaluation score.
The reviewer needs domain authority
A fluent English draft is not necessarily suitable for a buyer in another jurisdiction or industry. Route consequential content to someone authorised to judge its substance. Language fluency should not be treated as evidence that the proposed commitment is acceptable.
From this guide to your project
AI ↗
We start with a task and a quality criterion. AI belongs where it meaningfully improves the service.
Tell us about your ideaExamples are educational and do not describe client results. Content prepared with AI assistance; see our editorial policy. Our method ↗