# Human review plan

Turn “a person checks it” into a task someone can actually perform. Reviewers need evidence, time and the authority to correct or stop a proposed action.

Revision: 2026-09-24

## When to use it

When AI prepares content, changes records or proposes actions that need judgement before producing effects.

## Expected output

Routing and approval rules with named roles, review evidence, handling windows and a fallback when the reviewer is unavailable.

## 1. Decide what needs review

Classify actions by consequence and reversibility. Do not treat confidence reported by the model as the sole assurance that an answer is correct.

### Actions and consequences

List drafts, writes and sends; describe the operational harm that an error could cause.

________________

### Review and stop rules

Specify always-reviewed cases, verifiable automated checks and circumstances where work must not proceed.

________________

### Cases requiring a specialist

Define ambiguities and decisions the ordinary reviewer is not authorised to resolve.

________________

> Illustrative example, replace with your own: Illustrative example: a response draft stays internal. A proposed discount needs a sales owner; changes to bank details leave the automated workflow entirely.

## 2. Make the review feasible

Design the interface and workload with the reviewer. Approval without access to sources and changes is not a useful control.

### Evidence shown to the reviewer

List source material, extracted fields, proposed action, changes from the current state and warnings.

________________

### Available decisions

Define approve, correct, reject and request clarification; state the effects of each choice.

________________

### Owner, backup and capacity

Estimate case volume and review minutes, absence coverage and a manageable queue size.

________________

> Illustrative example, replace with your own: Illustrative example: the reviewer sees the original email beside the draft, corrects a product code and approves a specific identified version before it can be sent.

## 3. Handle delays and learning

Retain control when approval does not arrive. Record outcomes and use repeated errors to improve rules, source data and training.

### Expiry and missing approval

Specify when to alert the backup and suspend the case; silence must not silently become consent.

________________

### Decision trail

Preserve case reference, approved version, reviewer, time and correction reason with appropriate access.

________________

### Periodic procedure review

Define who examines missed errors, queue delays and unusually rapid approvals.

________________

> Illustrative example, replace with your own: Illustrative example: a draft without approval during the internal review window stays paused. The backup receives its reference and decides whether to resume the case.

## Pitfalls to avoid

- Assigning accountability without authority to stop the workflow.

- Allowing content to change after approval without another check.

- Increasing volume beyond the reviewers’ actual capacity.

Stolen Orbit — https://stolenorbit.com/en/templates/human-review-policy/