Human‑in‑the‑Loop Map
A map for defining where humans must remain—so automation supports judgment instead of replacing responsibility.
Interactive worksheet
Nothing is sent anywhere. Your inputs stay in your browser unless you choose to copy or download a summary.
List key decision points in a workflow and define where humans must remain. The goal is decision support—not abdication.
| Decision / step | AI role | Override? | Human owner | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Default: recommend + confirm. Only allow conditional execution for low‑risk actions with rollback. | |||||
Default: recommend + confirm. Only allow conditional execution for low‑risk actions with rollback. |
Preview summary (for copy/paste)
Human‑in‑the‑Loop Map — Summary Decision points: - Decision: Send an external message to a customer AI role: AI can recommend (human confirms) Override required: Yes Human owner: Owner / Ops lead Notes: AI can draft; a human approves tone and intent. - Decision: Route an intake request based on explicit fields AI role: AI can execute conditionally Override required: No Human owner: Ops Notes: Only if fields are validated and there’s an exception queue. Guidance: keep responsibility with a named person. Automation can reduce friction, but it should not absorb accountability.
This preview is local to your browser.
If you can’t name a human owner for a decision, automation should not own it either. Make responsibility visible.
What this helps you decide
- Define the boundary between decision support and decision ownership.
- Prevent automation from silently taking responsibility away from a human.
- Design override points that match real operations.
When to use it
- You’re considering automating routing, approvals, communications, or “next actions.”
- Your work involves accountability, customer trust, or compliance constraints.
- You want automation that reduces mental load without removing human judgment.
The framework
Decisions AI should never finalize
- Judgment-heavy tradeoffs with real consequences.
- Relationship-based communication where tone and context matter.
- Moral or accountability decisions where a person must own the outcome.
Decisions AI can recommend on
- Summaries and suggested categories for a human to confirm.
- Draft responses that a person reviews and sends.
- Exception detection: ‘this looks different than normal.’
Decisions AI can execute conditionally
- Low-risk actions with clear rules and a rollback path.
- Routing based on explicit fields and validated inputs.
- Notifications and reminders with clear ownership.
Required override points
- Before external communication is sent (unless it’s truly low-risk).
- Before money, access, or irreversible actions occur.
- When confidence is low or inputs are incomplete.
Common mistakes
- Letting “automation” own decisions because it’s faster.
- Hiding the override path so people can’t correct the system quickly.
- Treating drafts as final and removing human review prematurely.
What this does NOT answer
- Which specific model/tool to use.
- How to automate a moral decision (don’t).
If you want help drawing the boundary for a specific workflow, that’s what the AI Automation Audit is for.