01Ground preparation in evidence
Inspect the evidence behind a proposed next step.
An AI-generated summary or proposal should make its supporting context available for review. Source references, conflicting information and relevant uncertainty help people assess whether it is sound.
Interpretation must remain distinguishable from source records and accepted business decisions.
02Delegate within a defined scope
Give AI a responsibility with clear limits.
A person's permissions and organizational policy determine what authority they can delegate. An AI counterpart should remain within that scope as it investigates, prepares or uses a capability.
Changing tools, models or hosts requires the applicable access and authority checks in the receiving environment.
03Make review meaningful
Human approval needs enough context to be a decision.
For consequential proposals, the responsible person should be able to inspect the intended action, affected records, supporting evidence, expected effect and material uncertainty.
People need to be able to reject, revise or approve a proposal within their authority. The resulting decision should remain connected to the work.
04Preserve memory boundaries
Reuse context deliberately.
Personal notes, AI working memory and shared organizational knowledge serve different purposes. Moving information between those scopes should depend on explicit permission and a governed process.
A retained conclusion should remain traceable to its sources and open to correction when the evidence changes.
05Recognize and respond to limits
Models can be wrong. The work needs a way forward.
Incomplete evidence, ambiguous requests and conflicting sources can affect AI output. People need to be able to challenge a result, correct the context and decide what happens next.
Our engineering focus is to make those limits visible, preserve the response and carry unresolved questions into subsequent work.