Find the routes that reach the customer.
Check every route that can send the recommendation, including changes made after approval. One checked route leaves a gap if another can send unchecked work.
Use the controls your existing platform already provides. Check whether they still apply when a fact is missing, approval is pending or the recommendation changes after approval.
Give reviewers a decision they can make.
A reviewer needs the relevant facts, the reason for referral, time to consider the case, and authority to act. They must be able to seek missing evidence, challenge the proposal, or choose another permitted route.
An overflowing queue can turn review into a routine click. Asking people to check details that software could verify consumes the attention needed for difficult cases.
Routine work should have a usable path within agreed rules. Human review belongs where judgement or reserved authority is required. Model confidence cannot supply that authority.
Count the cost of an unnecessary stop.
A false block can delay service, trigger another contact, or encourage an urgent workaround. Those consequences belong in the evaluation alongside harmful releases.
Agree what should proceed, what requires review, and what delay is acceptable. When a case must wait, someone still owns the next lawful action.
A control earns its place by improving the decision and service at an acceptable cost. The number of stops is a poor measure of that achievement.
Follow a Decision Control example · See the workload behind review