Human approval is often added as a vague safety promise. It is more useful when the workflow states exactly which decisions need a person, what evidence they receive and what happens while the decision waits.
Separate reversible actions from consequential ones
Drafting a summary and sending money are not equivalent. Consider financial impact, customer impact, legal obligations, data sensitivity and how easily an action can be undone.
Low-risk, reversible steps may proceed with an activity record. Higher-impact actions need stronger checks.
Approve exceptions, not every keystroke
If a person must confirm every routine step, the automation may simply move work into a new queue. Approval is most effective around uncertainty, policy exceptions and consequential commitments.
The system should explain why an item was escalated and show the relevant source information.
Give the reviewer a real choice
A review screen should support approval, correction, rejection and escalation. It should also record who decided and what changed.
A button labelled approve is not meaningful governance if the reviewer lacks context or feels pressured to clear a queue.
Review the approval rules
Track how often people override, correct or ignore automated recommendations. Repeated corrections reveal where instructions, data or the workflow itself need attention.
Human oversight should improve the system, not merely absorb its mistakes.