Reviewers can examine reasons: Which evidence best shows that review is meaningful rather than a rubber stamp?

Meaningful review requires informed, case-specific evaluation with genuine authority to alter significant automated outcomes.

The question

Preparing for AIGP? Take the free 5-min readiness quiz →

1. Reviewers can examine reasons, consider worker information, and change assignments. ✓

   This evidence demonstrates substantive review because reviewers evaluate reasons, consider context, and possess authority to change significant outcomes.
2. The system displays confidence scores beside each recommendation.

   Confidence scores may inform review, but they do not establish that a supervisor can assess and alter the decision.
3. A supervisor records that each assignment was viewed.

   Recording that a decision was viewed does not show independent evaluation, authority to change outcomes, or consideration of relevant information.
4. The operations manager signs a weekly report summarizing assignment volumes.

   Aggregate reporting supports oversight, but it does not show case-level review capable of changing an individual significant decision.

How to remember it

Meaningful review requires informed, case-specific evaluation with genuine authority to alter significant automated outcomes.

More Understanding How Laws, Standards and Frameworks Apply to AI questions

• Escalate for Article 36 prior consultation: What should resolve this uncertainty before deployment? →
• Document the identification purpose and Article 9 basis: Which evidence should resolve approval? →
• Document the Chapter V mechanism and destination-risk: Which evidence is most decisive? →
• All 394 Understanding How Laws, Standards and Frameworks Apply to AI questions →