Human review policy

Use this with Chapter 18 and the existing delegation contract. This book-developed practice policy identifies concrete decisions, evidence, timing, holds, and review capacity. It is not a universal risk score or certification.

Blank reusable template

Policy ID / version / owner:

Workflow, contract, current instruction route:

Decision the human makes and object reviewed:

Reviewer authority and required understanding/expertise:

Consequential fields/relationships requiring inspection:

Candidate→source comparison:

Source→candidate omission check:

Mechanical, model-assisted, and human checks; what each cannot establish:

Selective review, if used: inspected scope and what remains unchecked:

Novelty or missed-error trigger for broader inspection:

Verdict wording and allowed use after acceptance:

How a withdrawn acceptance reaches stored state and dependent work:

Review capacity / intake limit / pending-state owner:

Pause/resume conditions; silence and elapsed time do not grant approval:

Actual rehearsal record: Source, candidate version, instruction version, initial verdict, observed missed defect, corrected verdict, repair, stored-state check, remaining limits.

Fictional worked policy: Himura Inc.

ID: review-policy-v1. Audy reviews the return from delegation-contract-v1. Current task instruction remains instructions-v3, selected by learning-loop-v1. Himura Inc.'s thirty-minute workshop remains a synthetic design proposal with no customers or observed learning outcomes.

Inspection: Compare action/status/object/owner/timing/source for every consequential row in this small packet. Read source→candidate to detect omissions and candidate→source to detect invention. Distinct source objects must remain distinct unless evidence justifies their combination. Check notes organize review but do not replace the source.

Authored missed-error rehearsal: Candidate D18-01 merges the exercise brief and revised action list into “materials,” gives Thursday to both, and hides the Tuesday/Wednesday conflict. Audy initially glances at the candidate and accepts. A later source comparison reveals the defect. See review practice packet.

Corrected verdict: Withdraw acceptance of D18-01; hold it from further approved use; request a rewrite restoring distinct objects and unresolved conflict. Instructions-v3 already covers the required behavior, so no instructions-v4 is created.

Repair allowance: D18 is a separate invocation after the D17 rehearsal has concluded, with its own new first candidate. The displayed rewrite uses its one permitted repair: 0 → 1. It does not extend or reset the D17 allowance. Any further material defect returns for human diagnosis.

Stored-state check: Reopen the candidate and verdict. Ensure the old acceptance is visibly withdrawn, the flawed candidate is held/rejected history, and the replacement’s scoped verdict is the one later work encounters. Inspect dependent work if any already used the error. In the authored case, nothing went outside the rehearsal.

Capacity: One packet at a time initially. A queue item needs candidate/version, reason pending, reviewer, and next action. If six arrive and two are reviewed, four are pending; this illustrative arithmetic is not completed delivery. An unavailable reviewer leaves the work pending.

Selective review: None for the few consequential fields in this small packet. Style receives only the attention needed for the design task. Any later sampling policy must specify its scope and limitations and cannot replace a required authorization.

Holds: Missing source/instruction, unclear authority, insufficient expertise, exceeded repair allowance, or unresolved decision outside the existing procedure. A faithfully represented deadline conflict is allowed in a candidate; it is not a confirmed deadline.

Accepted use: Continued synthetic workshop design only. Acceptance does not establish real events, learner effectiveness, general reliability, customer demand, or external-action permission.

Acceptance criteria

• The reviewer knows what judgment is required and has the evidence and competence to make it.
• Review timing precedes the consequence it is intended to control.
• Reversible authorized drafting can proceed without unnecessary per-paragraph approval.
• Consequential claims and omissions are inspected against the original source, not only an assistant’s verdict.
• A missed error can withdraw acceptance, repair stored status, and trigger inspection of dependent work.
• Appropriate unresolved answers and well-specified holds are treated as valid boundary handling.
• Intake fits review capacity; pending work cannot silently become approved.

Common failure and repair