EvaNeT / field notes
Where should human approval gates go in an AI workflow?
Place human review before external messages, consequential record changes, sensitive routing, and spending; make the proposed action visible.
An approval gate belongs immediately before the action whose consequences a person must own. A reviewer needs the source context and the exact proposed change.
Identify consequences
Mark each step that sends a message, edits a record, spends money, changes access, or routes sensitive information. Summaries and drafts can be prepared earlier, but those steps should remain proposals until the appropriate owner acts.
Show enough evidence to decide
A reviewer should see the original input, the AI draft or field diff, uncertainty or missing data, and the destination of the action. Give them a way to approve, reject, request changes, or defer. A silent “auto-approve” path defeats the control.
Recheck at execution time
Approval is not a substitute for service-side access checks. EvaNeT’s published governed-record beta notes describe rechecking both permission and record revision when an authorized reviewer applies a staged change. That prevents an old approval from silently overwriting a newer record in that supported flow.
Take the next step
Discuss one workflow with EvaNeT
We can map its current handoffs, risks, and review points before proposing a pilot.