Human review needs a specific job — Simple Horizon

Adding a person to a process does not automatically make the result dependable. The reviewer needs enough information, time, and authority to recognize a problem and change what happens next.

Define what the person is expected to check. Provide the original input and relevant evidence rather than only the generated answer. A review should have a clear path for correction or escalation when the result is unsuitable.

Observe the process during an ordinary case and an uncertain one. If the reviewer can only approve a finished output without inspecting its basis, the arrangement may need to change. Useful oversight is an actual task with a meaningful effect.

Imagine a practical setting.

Consider one person checking factual claims and another editing readability. The separate tasks explain what each approval can reasonably establish.

Before the next experiment.

Give review a specific responsibility. Checking a source, testing an instruction, and editing a sentence are different jobs and may need different evidence.

A few starting points