In one HR Mission Control test, the workflow ignored a source's instruction to rewrite policy. Then it suggested archiving the weak alert without a person. The design required a person to review it, but the tool still tried to close the case on its own.
That is why I check more than whether a reviewer appears in the diagram. The person needs the source, enough time, authority to disagree, and a way to stop the next action.
What I test before anyone relies on it
- Name the decision owner. Check that the reviewer can edit, reject, or send the work elsewhere.
- Show the sources, dates, location, and draft together. Important claims need sources, and missing facts must appear before a proposed action.
- Test the limits. The tool must refuse to decide a sensitive matter about a named employee and stop on conflicting information or missing facts.
- Try the other paths. Nothing consequential should happen before approval, and the tool must not use another route to bypass review.
- Make it possible to reach a qualified person. Anyone affected by the work needs that access.
- Check the record. Keep the version, reviewer, reasoning, owner, final result, and what changed between the draft and the approved version.
Keep facts, interpretation, and action separate
I want the review to separate the facts, what they might mean, what is still missing, the proposed next step, and the person who owns the call. That makes the evidence easier to check and shows where HR, Legal, Privacy, or Security needs to step in.
If the person cannot see why the tool produced the result, stop it, or leave a lasting correction, the person is not really in control.