Applied AI

What a useful human review point actually looks like

“Human in the loop” is not a safety plan by itself. The review point has to show a person what went in, what the system suggested, what evidence supports it, and what will happen if they accept it.

Four things the reviewer needs

• The original input, in enough context to recognize the case.
• The proposed assist, clearly separated from fact.
• The source or reason behind the suggestion.
• A visible final action, owner, and ability to reject or revise.

Why this matters

Without those pieces, review becomes a rubber stamp. With them, a team can catch missing context, correct a bad suggestion, and learn which part of the workflow needs better information.

Use a bounded first proof

Choose one repetitive decision that already has a human owner. Use synthetic or redacted inputs. Measure whether the reviewer can move faster without losing the ability to inspect and disagree. If the system cannot explain its handoff, it has not earned a larger role.

Formulary Finder follows this boundary: it organizes published evidence for staff review and does not determine clinical appropriateness, eligibility, payment, approval, or denial.