Separate preparation from commitment
An AI workflow can gather information, prepare a draft and recommend a next step without having authority to commit the business to that step. Before adding automation, identify the point where preparation becomes an action: sending a message, changing a record, approving a request or triggering a downstream process.
Describe that boundary in the workflow itself. Make it clear which outputs are drafts, which actions are permitted and which require explicit approval. A reviewer should never have to infer whether an action has already taken place from the wording of a status message.
Give the reviewer enough context
A review screen should explain what is being proposed and why. Present the original request, the proposed output, the relevant source material and any information that could not be established. If an action changes a record, show the existing value alongside the proposed value.
Design the handoff around the reviewer’s actual responsibility. Someone checking a document for completeness needs different information from someone authorising a payment. Avoid overwhelming both with the same undifferentiated activity log. Make the material needed for the decision easy to inspect.
Make ownership and authority explicit
Choose who can approve each type of action and how work reaches them. Define what should happen when that person is unavailable, when two people disagree or when a request falls outside their authority. An exception needs an owner and a route back into the process.
Review should be a meaningful choice. Provide a way to reject, correct or request more information, with a reason that the next person can understand. Record the final decision and connect it to the output that was actually reviewed, so later changes do not inherit an earlier approval by accident.
Design the uncomfortable cases first
Walk through scenarios with missing documents, contradictory instructions and an unavailable downstream system. Decide whether the workflow waits, produces a limited draft or hands the task to a person. Explain the current state clearly so that silence is not mistaken for successful completion.
Also consider repeated requests. If a person presses approve twice or a connection fails after an action, the workflow needs a way to determine what already happened before attempting it again. The user should be able to see the outcome without guessing whether they have duplicated the work.
Check whether the handoff works in practice
During a pilot, observe how reviewers use the workflow. Where do they need to open another system? Which explanations are unclear? Are proposals waiting because the responsible person or required information is missing? These observations can reveal improvements to the process as well as the assistant.
Use that feedback to refine the approval boundary and the presentation of evidence. Keep the level of automation proportionate to what the team can evaluate and operate. Human oversight works best when it is a designed part of the workflow, with clear responsibility at each consequential decision.
A Century guide. Use these questions as a starting point, then agree the details for your own workflow and environment.