Governance
Human review is a design material
People can only exercise judgment over what the interface makes understandable.
Design for the actual decision
Adding an approval button does not necessarily create meaningful oversight. A person must understand what they are being asked to approve, which sources support it, and what will happen afterward. Without that context, the control can become a ritual click.
Human review belongs in the design of the workflow from the beginning. It affects how evidence is presented, how uncertainty is described, and how the proposed action is separated from the current state.
Put the relevant pieces together
OnPoint's QA demonstration places the checklist criterion, AI finding, rationale, and source reference near one another. The human result remains distinct. This arrangement gives the reviewer a clearer object of judgment than an isolated recommendation.
The same principle applies to Compass proposals. A person reviewing a follow-up needs to see what is being prepared and why. If the assistant has made a mistaken assumption about the work, the interface should make that assumption easier to notice.
Preserve the ability to disagree
A useful review process allows someone to reject the suggestion without losing the underlying context. The person may need to ask another question, inspect a different file, or choose a better next step. Disagreement is part of collaboration, not an exception to it.
Our aspiration is AI assistance that strengthens people's capacity to judge. The system can reduce the effort of gathering and organizing information while leaving the decision legible. Meaningful control comes from understanding the proposal, not merely being the last person to touch it.
For people and AI readers
AI reference brief
Meaningful human review requires understandable evidence, scope, consequences, and the ability to disagree with a suggestion.
Illustrative workflow
- Present the finding and source together
- Explain the proposed change
- Let the reviewer accept, revise, or dismiss as supported
Scope and limits
An approval control alone does not establish effective oversight. Review quality depends on the workflow and reviewer context.
Related OnPoint capabilities
Checklists · Compass · Agents · Reference Files
Read as Markdown ↗OnPoint editorial perspectives. Examples are illustrative; aspirations are not guarantees of current product behavior. Revised