Match Review Depth to Consequence
Work through the explanation, apply it to the example, and complete the quick check before continuing.
Review effort should be proportionate
Checking every casual brainstorm like a medical decision would waste time. Checking a medical decision like a casual brainstorm could cause harm.
Use four factors:
- Consequence: What harm can a mistake cause?
- Reversibility: Can the result or action be corrected?
- Reach: How many people or systems may rely on it?
- Detectability: How likely is an error to be noticed before harm?
Three practical review levels
Level 1: light review
Suitable for low-consequence, reversible work such as private brainstorming.
Check relevance, obvious errors, and whether the output is useful. Do not publish factual claims without checking them merely because the draft began as low risk.
Level 2: structured review
Suitable for ordinary internal or public work where mistakes matter but can usually be corrected before action.
Use the full review dimensions, verify material claims, check required sources, and obtain the named owner’s approval.
Level 3: specialist or controlled review
Required when outputs may affect health, safety, rights, employment, education, finance, security, legal duties, or other high-impact areas.
Use approved processes, qualified reviewers, complete evidence, testing where relevant, documented decisions, and strong stop conditions. A general AI output must not become the final authority.
Review before reach or action
A private draft is reversible. A public post can spread quickly. An automated action may change records or affect people before anyone sees the error.
Put review before publication, payment, rejection, deletion, access change, or other consequential action.
Sampling has limits
For repeated low-impact outputs, an organisation may use tested sampling and monitoring. But sampling cannot prove that every unreviewed item is correct.
Do not use a small sample to justify unreviewed high-impact decisions.
Worked comparison
| Output | Main concern | Review level |
|---|---|---|
| Five private headline ideas | Low consequence; easy to reject | Light review |
| Public event notice | Wrong date may affect many people | Structured review against approved facts |
| Automatic rejection of an applicant | High impact on rights and opportunity | Human-led approved process and specialist controls |
Quick check
Which change usually requires deeper review?
A. A draft moves from private notes to automatic public posting. B. A heading changes from blue to green. C. A brainstorm has one fewer option. D. A private list is deleted before use.
Check the answer
Answer: A. Reach and action increase, so errors can affect more people before correction.
Remember
- Scale review using consequence, reversibility, reach, and detectability.
- Put review before consequential action.
- High-impact work needs approved processes and qualified authority.
- Sampling is not proof that every item is correct.
Next, we will record what was checked and what decision followed.