AI assistance
What “human review” should mean in AI-assisted work
Review is a design decision, not a disclaimer. Four properties that make it real.
“A person stays in the loop” has become a standard reassurance. It means something only if the loop is designed so that review is possible, informed and recorded. Four properties make the difference.
The reviewer can see the reasons
An AI suggestion should arrive with the sources it relied on and a plain statement of what it did. Without them, review becomes a vote of confidence rather than a check.
Saying no is as easy as saying yes
If approving takes one click and rejecting takes a form, the design is nudging the reviewer. Accept, edit and reject should carry equal weight in the interface — the same size, the same distance, the same effort.
Consequential steps wait
Drafting can be automatic. Sending, publishing, booking or changing a record should pause for a person. Where that line sits is a decision to make deliberately for each workflow, and to write down.
The record survives
Who approved what, when and with which comment should be kept with the output itself. When questions come later — and they do — the record answers them without anyone relying on memory.
Review designed this way is not a brake on assistance. It is what makes assistance usable for work that matters.