GLOSSARY
Human-in-the-loop
Human-in-the-loop involves people at defined points in an AI-assisted workflow, for correction or approval; meaningful involvement requires information, time and authority to intervene.
An approval click needs a basis for judgment
Before a proposal is sent, an accountable person can review its price, scope and commitments. Effective approval requires visibility of the relevant changes and unresolved risks. A long, disorganised output under time pressure makes that harder. If every minor detail demands equal attention, important deviations may be overlooked. The workflow should therefore provide clear review points and responsibilities. Human involvement is a design choice whose value does not follow merely from the presence of a confirmation button.
Focus attention on consequential decisions
Routine cases can operate within defined limits while exceptions trigger a reasoned escalation. The appropriate division depends on task risk and professional competence. Explainability supports reviewers when it reveals relevant grounds. Guardrails can additionally restrict permissions and actions. A pilot should examine which errors people actually detect and how long checking takes. It should also verify that they can change decisions or stop the process. Only then can the organisation determine whether the human step provides meaningful control or mainly adds more clicks.