“A human will review it” is not a control. Effective human review specifies who reviews, what they inspect, which evidence they receive, how much authority they have, and when the workflow must stop. Without that design, review becomes a vague promise at the end of an automated process.
Match the review to the consequence of error
The depth of review should reflect what happens if the output is incomplete, misleading, or wrong. A low-impact internal summary may need a quick source check. A customer communication, accounting conclusion, credit decision, or legal analysis may require qualified review, documented evidence, and a second approval.
Classify the decision first. Then assign the reviewer based on expertise and authority, not simply availability.
Give the reviewer a defined job
Check scope
Confirm that the request and output remain inside the approved use case, data boundaries, and decision authority.
Verify evidence
Provide source records, citations, calculations, and version information in a form the reviewer can actually inspect.
Apply acceptance criteria
Use written standards for factual accuracy, completeness, materiality, format, policy compliance, and unresolved uncertainty.
Record the decision
Capture approval, rejection, override, escalation, and the reason. This creates evidence for monitoring and improvement.
Design escalation before the pilot
Reviewers should not invent escalation rules under time pressure. Define triggers for missing data, conflicting sources, material uncertainty, low confidence, policy exceptions, unusual amounts, or high-impact decisions. State who receives the escalation and whether the process pauses automatically.
A reviewer also needs permission to reject the output. If delivery targets make rejection impractical, the control exists only on paper.
Monitor the review process itself
Track more than model accuracy. Review time, rejection rates, overrides, recurring exception types, missed issues, and user workarounds reveal whether the operating design works. If reviewers approve everything without evidence or spend more time than the old process required, redesign the workflow.