Give the reviewer a job, not just an approval button

“Human in the loop” leaves important questions unanswered. Which human, checking what, against which source, with what authority to stop the work? A review process should be specific enough that another qualified person can understand what happened.

Defense-counsel guidance published by Independent Agent recommends treating AI output as a preliminary draft and verifying material quote, proposal, coverage-summary, and comparison information against applicable source documents (Independent Agent). The process below is an editorial implementation suggestion, not a legal opinion or an exhaustive coverage review.

Before the output arrives, identify the reviewer and the intended use. An internal draft inventory and a client-facing coverage explanation need different expertise and release decisions.

List the material fields and statements to check. For a proposal workflow, candidate checks include insured identity, policy period, limits, deductibles, exclusions, endorsements, and the basis of premiums and charges. Tailor the list to the actual work rather than assuming a generic checklist is complete.

Give the reviewer the original input, the AI output, and a way to move between each material statement and its source. A clean-looking document with no source trail increases the work needed to establish its basis.

Separate “checked and correct,” “corrected,” and “unresolved.” Do not turn a missing value into a zero, a negative response, or a statement that the item does not apply. Record the uncertainty and escalate when necessary.

The reviewer should be able to reject the output, return it for correction, or require manual completion. For systems that can act on other software, OWASP recommends that authorization be enforced in downstream systems rather than delegated to the language model (OWASP Excessive Agency).

As a practical boundary, separate draft generation from release. A person should not discover that approving a draft also changed a record or sent an external message unless that action was explicitly presented and authorized.

Record the source version, material corrections, unresolved issues, reviewer, and release decision in the approved record system. Defense-counsel guidance recommends documenting available information, AI output, verification or modifications, and client communications (Independent Agent).

Do not invent a universal retention period. Use the organization's approved retention schedule and obtain advice where legal, contractual, or coverage obligations need interpretation.

Next: Use the source-to-output review log to make this assignment concrete. For repeat failures, use the incident and change log.