What This Looks Like
A human reviewer and an automated AI or workflow step produce different results for the same case. The human may approve what automation rejects, automation may escalate what a reviewer clears, or the AI may classify a case differently than a human decision without a clear resolution rule.
Why It Matters
Human review and automation often sit in the same control path. If they disagree without a declared authority rule, the workflow cannot reliably know which result governs. This can lead to duplicated review, inconsistent escalation, skipped approvals, or unresolved cases.
Structural Signal
Two review authorities produce non-equivalent states, and the workflow lacks a stable reconciliation rule. The issue is not simply that one party is wrong; it is that disagreement between human and automated review is not structurally resolved.
Common Triggers
- Human review and AI review use different criteria
- Automation runs before or after human review without a precedence rule
- A reviewer can override automation but the override path is not encoded
- The workflow treats both results as final
- The AI explains a decision differently than the reviewer’s rubric
- Escalation rules do not say what happens when review sources disagree
When to Use This Issue
Use this Issue when human review and automated AI or workflow review disagree and the system does not clearly declare which result controls or how the conflict is resolved.
When Not to Use This Issue
Do not use this Issue when the human reviewer is simply correcting an AI mistake through a clear override path. Do not use it when only one review source exists. This Issue applies when disagreement between review sources creates an unresolved workflow state.