Separate preparation from execution
Preparing a draft, recommendation, or record is different from sending, publishing, changing, or committing it. A workflow should make that distinction legible.
Use risk and context
Some low-risk, repeatable actions may be appropriate to execute under an agreed policy. External, ambiguous, financial, or otherwise consequential actions need a responsible review point.
Review the policy with the work
Approval design should change when the process changes. The point is not to add a permanent bottleneck; it is to make accountability explicit.
Worked example: a sales follow-up
A draft can contain the right words and still have the wrong recipient or an outdated commitment. Present the recipient, source context, complete proposed message, and intended action together. The reviewer should approve that specific proposal, not a broad request to handle sales.
When the proposal changes
If a recipient, amount, attachment, or material claim changes after review, treat the change as a new decision. An expired or ambiguous approval should stop the action. Record the outcome so an operator can distinguish prepared, approved, executed, and failed work.
Define exception ownership
Name the person who handles missing context, failed delivery, and conflicting instructions before the pilot begins. Repeated execution attempts should not produce duplicate external actions. Ask how this behaviour will be demonstrated in the agreed deployment.
Put the guide into practice
Review human control in managed AI operations, or explore the workflow pilot examples to find a scope your team can assess.