Founders
How to include human review in an evaluation of AI workflow automation
AI workflow automation: Human review needs a rubric, an accountable reviewer, and a way to resolve disagreement.
Human review needs a rubric, an accountable reviewer, and a way to resolve disagreement. Merely placing a person after an AI system does not establish quality. Consider whether that person has time, context, authority, and access to the underlying evidence.
Start with the decision
Define which cases need review and what the reviewer checks. Track corrections, reversals, and cases where reviewers disagree. Include review effort in the workflow model instead of describing human intervention as free or instantaneous.
The illustrative scenario
This is an educational workbook. The company or fund and all numerical inputs below are fictional. They are not ADIN results, customer claims, market benchmarks, or a forecast.
The fictional product routes purchase requests through a small operations team. A requester supplies context, a budget owner approves spending, and an administrator maintains the workflow. Exceptions are common enough to affect adoption.
Automating a step can move work to the exception queue rather than remove it. Keep proposed actions, approvals, and completed actions separate in the event history.
An evaluation sample with a denominator
Imagine a permissioned evaluation set with 27 cases and 18 that meet a rubric defined before the test. The resulting percentage describes only this invented sample. Seventy percent is not a recommended target, a safety standard, or evidence about any real system. What matters is the rubric, sample coverage, and consequences of the remaining cases.
Automating a step can move work to the exception queue rather than remove it. Keep proposed actions, approvals, and completed actions separate in the event history. Break the 9 remaining cases into failure categories before interpreting the aggregate. A recoverable wording issue and an unauthorized action may require different product behavior even when both count as a failed case. Keep reviewer disagreement and missing evidence visible.
The assumed time comparison is 18 minutes before and 11 minutes after, including the stated human step. Validate the same start and end points in a real study, then include retries, repair, and handoffs. Compare the full request-to-decision process with the current system. A faster initial classification can hide a slower approval or correction stage. A short average time is not enough if the result cannot be used or trusted.
| Item | Illustration |
|---|---|
| Invented evaluation cases | 27 |
| Cases meeting the fictional rubric | 18 |
| Cases requiring investigation | 9 |
| Observed proportion in this exercise | 66.7% |
| Assumed human minutes before / after | 18 / 11 |
Use this worksheet
Answer the questions with a source, date, owner, and next action. Mark an unknown as unknown. Use public or permissioned information and involve a qualified specialist when a question requires expertise beyond the team’s competence.
- Which cases require review?
- What evidence can the reviewer inspect?
- Who resolves disagreement?
- How long does review take?
- Can the reviewer stop the action?
Questions specific to this scenario
- Who approves a purchase?
- Which exceptions stop the workflow?
- How are manual overrides recorded?
Inspect request histories, approval timestamps, exception reasons, manual overrides, and changes in process ownership. Include requests that stalled or were withdrawn.
A concrete next test
Follow one request that passes normally and one that needs an exception. Ask the requester, approver, and administrator what each can see and change. Record whether automation removes work or increases the burden on the person managing stalled requests.
Interpret the result
Review is useful when it changes or validates consequential outcomes. If the person only approves a plausible answer without enough context, investigate whether the process adds assurance or only another click.
Compare the full request-to-decision process with the current system. A faster initial classification can hide a slower approval or correction stage.
Sources and method
These primary resources provide background for the concepts. The fictional scenario, calculations, and worksheet are ADIN educational examples; the sources do not report or validate those invented results. Reviewed October 11, 2026.