The outcome
Human review is not a glance at the final wording. It is an informed judgement about whether the work is accurate, appropriate and safe to use for its intended purpose.
A meaningful review gives a named person the information, time and authority to check, challenge, change or reject the work before anyone relies on it.
When human review is required
Choose the review level by what the work may cause people to believe, decide or do, not by its length or format.
Routine review
For low-impact, reversible work such as an internal first draft or idea list. The author checks usefulness, accuracy, tone, confidentiality and obvious rights issues before use.
Enhanced review
For external content, customer communications, substantive analysis or work that could affect trust. A suitably skilled second person independently checks material claims, context, brand, rights and foreseeable harm.
Specialist approval
For higher-risk decisions, regulated topics, sensitive data or material legal, financial, safety or reputational exposure. Relevant specialists review the work and an authorised owner approves its use.
A short email can carry more risk than a long report.
Choose the right reviewer
The reviewer should have:
- Subject knowledge appropriate to the claims or decision
- Awareness of the audience, context and potential harm
- Access to source material and relevant organisational rules
- Sufficient independence for the level of risk
- Authority to request changes, stop release or escalate concerns
One person does not need to cover every area of expertise. Higher-impact work may need separate subject, privacy, legal, brand or accessibility review.
What the reviewer must check
Name the accountable person
One person owns the decision to use, publish, send or rely on the work.
State the purpose and audience
The reviewer knows what the work is for, who may act on it and what could follow.
Check independent evidence
Important facts, claims, quotations, calculations and sources are checked outside the AI output.
Look for absence and distortion
The reviewer considers what is missing, overconfident, stereotyped, misleading or unsuitable for the context.
Check rights and people
Personal data, confidentiality, copyright, licence, ownership, bias and foreseeable effects are considered.
What approval means
Approval means a named person has checked the work, made or confirmed the final decision and accepts responsibility for the final result. Merely viewing an output does not count as approval.
The approver must be able to request changes, reject release or escalate the work where the evidence, risk or authority is not sufficient.
Keep proportionate evidence
For enhanced or specialist review, record the title or reference, intended use, impact level, main checks, material changes, reviewer, approval decision and date. Link to source material where appropriate without retaining unnecessary sensitive content.
Approval should expire or be reconsidered when the purpose, audience, source information, model, tool, settings or output changes materially.
Escalate uncertainty
Stop and ask for help when the reviewer cannot judge the evidence, the possible impact is unclear or the work may affect rights, money, safety, legal position or organisational reputation. Escalation is part of meaningful review, not a failure to complete it.
Check you’re using the current version
This guidance is Version 1.0, reviewed 2 August 2026. Material changes are recorded in the Foundation release record.
View the Foundation release record