IGNITE9 LLC
Where human approval belongs in an AI workflow
Use explicit review gates for consequential actions, with evidence and recoverable decisions.
IGNITE9 EDITORIAL · GOVERNANCE
Separate a proposal from an action
An agent may draft a change without being permitted to apply it. Treat production writes, publishing, financial decisions, and external communications as distinct actions with their own permissions. Review the exact arguments and destination, not just a general description of the task.
Give reviewers usable evidence
A reviewer needs the input sources, proposed change, test results, and likely failure modes. A fluent explanation without traceable evidence is not a control. Show the difference between verified facts, inference, and missing information.
Avoid rubber-stamp queues
Review gates should correspond to risk. If every harmless read requires approval, people may stop paying attention. Define low-risk activity clearly while keeping changes to critical systems and sensitive data within stricter boundaries.
Preserve a recovery path
Record who approved what, when, and with which scope. Establish how to stop a workflow, restore a previous state where supported, and escalate uncertainty. Passing tests supports a release decision; it does not authorize one by itself.
Find a relevant starting point
Use our assessment to explore product fit, then discuss scope and availability with the team.
Find your workflow →