Human review is often listed as a safeguard without specifying how anyone will perform it. If an agency is building document extraction, ask to see the reviewer experience alongside the automatic path. The queue needs to explain the uncertainty, show evidence and preserve the decision that lets work continue.
Related service: AI automation development- 01Explain the exception
- 02Show source evidence
- 03Record a correction
- 04Revalidate and release
SECTION 01
Choose actionable reasons for review
Useful entry reasons include unreadable text, a conflict with an existing record, a missing required field or inconsistent totals. Show the reason in plain language. A generic low-confidence badge forces staff to inspect everything and makes it difficult to improve the recurring problem.
Agree who owns each exception and how work is claimed so two people do not resolve the same item differently. Separate document access from permission to approve a downstream change. OWASP authorization guidance supports enforcing these permissions in the application, not simply hiding approval buttons. A stalled queue needs an owner, not a silent assumption that someone will notice.
SECTION 02
Illustrative example: conflicting delivery references
A scanned receipt appears to contain reference D-108, but its barcode or linked order suggests D-180. The interface shows the two candidates, the relevant source region and the matched order. The reviewer can request a clearer scan or select a justified correction; they should not be asked to approve an unexplained model guess.
If another operator uploads a clearer source while the review is open, the pending decision becomes stale. The screen identifies the newer version and asks the reviewer to recheck. After correction, the workflow reruns the matching checks before creating a receiving record. This is an illustrative acceptance scenario, not a claimed accuracy improvement.
SECTION 03
Make review quality measurable without rushing staff
Track exception reasons, unresolved age and repeated corrections to identify capture or extraction problems. Avoid rewarding throughput alone: fast approval of incorrect output defeats the purpose of review. NIST's contextual risk approach is useful when deciding which cases need a second reviewer or a more restrictive release rule.
Ask the agency to deliver queue filters, claim and reassignment behavior, audit records and an operator guide. Test abandoned reviews, changed source versions, unauthorized approvals and unavailable downstream systems. Start with a narrow field set if necessary; a well-explained review path may be more valuable than automatically extracting many fields that nobody can verify efficiently.
SECTION 04
Frequently asked questions
Should all uncertain fields share one queue?
Only if the same people can resolve them. Different ownership or evidence requirements may justify separate queues or clear routing filters.
Can a reviewer change the source document?
Prefer preserving the original and recording a corrected value or a linked replacement version. Do not erase the evidence that prompted review.
What happens after approval?
The application should revalidate the approved version and execute only its permitted next action, recording whether that action actually succeeded.
PRIMARY REFERENCES
Sources and further reading
These references cover the standards, platforms, or published prices discussed in the guide. Worked examples and checklists are our editorial guidance.
EDITORIAL METHOD
About this guide
We use AI to assist with drafting and editing. Catapult AI Work is responsible for the published content. Examples illustrate possible approaches; they are not client case studies unless identified as such.
Budget examples are not Catapult package prices. Check linked provider pages for current fees and plan limits before making a purchase.
Read the editorial policy