“Human review required” leaves an important question unanswered: what must the reviewer check? For a legal AI workflow extracting contract details, that might mean comparing each field with a cited source page. A reviewer cannot verify an output reliably if the workflow removes the evidence. These questions turn a general review requirement into a task someone can perform.
Which Task Is Suitable for a First Trial?
Choose a narrow output with a clear comparison method. In a worked example, a U.S. company’s legal team wants draft metadata from approved contract files: document date, named counterparty, and the source page for each extracted field. The pilot does not ask the tool to decide a legal issue or send advice to a business user. Counsel and the system owner determine what tasks and information are appropriate for the trial.
What Information Can the Tool Receive?
Use the organization’s approved tool, access arrangement, and data-handling instructions. Identify the source collection and who can authorize its use. Do not assume that access to a folder automatically permits connecting it to another service. Record any excluded categories and use suitable test data for cases that should be rejected. Keep the system owner and responsible lawyers involved in those decisions.
What Does the Human Reviewer Actually Check?
Specify the check field by field. For the metadata trial, the reviewer compares the extracted value with the source page, confirms the document identity, and marks uncertainty. A general instruction to “review the output” can leave different reviewers applying different standards.
| Output | Required Check |
|---|---|
| Extracted Value | Matches the approved source and its context. |
| Source Reference | Points to the correct document and location. |
| Uncertain Field | Is flagged for a person rather than silently completed. |
| Final Record | Shows who accepted or corrected the proposed value. |
How Should We Test It?
Include ordinary documents, missing pages, unusual layouts, contradictory information, and material outside the approved task. Record the expected behavior and the observed result. NIST’s Generative AI Profile supplies a structured risk-management reference; it is not a certification that a particular pilot is safe or accurate. Judge the configured workflow using its own evidence and the organization’s acceptance criteria.
When Must the Workflow Stop?
Define the conditions that return work to a person: an unavailable source, an unrecognized document type, missing required evidence, or a failed connection. Gartner’s June 2026 governance discussion emphasizes controls that operate during use. For this pilot, the system should not turn an unverified extraction into an accepted contract record simply because it completed without a technical error.
What Changes After the Pilot?
If the department approves limited use, name the person who can pause it and the person who reviews recurring corrections. Keep the pilot examples as a regression set: rerun the relevant cases when the model, instructions, source collection, or destination changes. An update should not silently change how an accepted record is produced.
Decide what would justify a broader assignment. Extracting a document date successfully does not establish that the tool can assess a legal obligation. A proposed expansion needs its own review standard and evidence. Retain the limits of the accepted use in the operating instructions, where the next administrator and reviewer can find them.