A readable correction can still leave the quantity unresolved
Imagine your intake system has read an order form. The quantity box says 12. A note on the second page says “Correction: 21”, but the packet contains no record approving that change. Before the order system uses either number, someone must decide which quantity applies.
This is our invented example, shown in the graphic.[S1] Both numbers are legible. A better transcription alone cannot establish whether the correction is valid. The operations reviewer needs the original field, the note and the missing approval question together. Asking that person to check only a neatly extracted “21” hides the very reason their judgement is needed.
Keep two decisions separate: what the document says, and what the process permits someone to do with it. Even after an authorized person confirms the corrected quantity, that confirmation does not grant an agent new access to change the order. The update must still follow its normal controls.
Review the unresolved field before it drives another action
Start with the action that would use the extracted information. In the example, the quantity would change an order record. Hold that particular update while its input is unresolved. Other permitted work, such as recording that the document arrived, need not wait merely because the quantity does.
We propose the following checks for a document intake process. They are decision conditions to adapt and test with the process owner, not a declaration that all remaining fields are safe to automate.
| What the reviewer faces | Proposed handling |
|---|---|
| The required quantity is absent from the extraction, and the source has not been checked. | Open the relevant page. Distinguish a missed value, a genuinely blank field and an unreadable scan before using it. |
| The form says 12 and a correction says 21, with no approval evidence. | Present both locations and ask who can confirm the valid quantity. Hold the order update. |
| A new form version places the quantity in a different table. | Keep the affected extraction in review until that form and field have been assessed; do not inherit the previous version’s release automatically. |
| The value is readable and consistent, but changing the order requires authorization. | Keep that approval step. Correct extraction is evidence about a field, not permission to perform the action. |
Confidence can help decide where to look first. AWS advises choosing thresholds around the application and its sensitivity to errors.[S2] Microsoft describes checking field scores against representative, verified documents and validating decisions on held-out examples. In its insurance account, every field still received human review; prioritization did not remove that review.[S3] We therefore prescribe no percentage here.
Send the original pages with the exact question to resolve
A review task should let the receiving person begin without reconstructing the document’s journey. For our quantity example, we would keep the following packet beside the proposed update. Show only information the reviewer is permitted to access, and retain the source version so a later change does not silently replace the evidence they saw.
| Packet item | Invented order Q17 |
|---|---|
| Source and location | Form revision A, page 1, quantity box: 12. Attached note, page 2: “Correction: 21”. Both excerpts link to their full pages. |
| Unresolved question | Was the correction approved, and by whom? No approval record accompanies the packet. |
| Affected action | Changing the quantity in order Q17. That update remains on hold. |
| Receiving role | The designated operations reviewer, with a named substitute and an agreed response time. |
| Decision record | The reviewer, time, selected value or continued hold, and the source or authorized clarification supporting that decision. |
The reviewer may conclude that neither number can yet be used. That is a useful outcome: the next step is to request the missing approval from the responsible person. Do not force the interface to offer only “accept” and “reject” when “cannot decide from these documents” is the accurate answer.
Keep the update on hold until the review is actually resolved
Saving the packet in a queue establishes that it is waiting. Record separately when a person accepts the task and when they resolve the field. In Q17, a receipt saying “accepted by operations” still leaves the quantity undecided. Only the later supported decision can supply the value for the next permitted step.
Agree who watches unaccepted tasks and what happens when the reviewer is absent. If the source link fails, the receiving system is unavailable or the response time expires, keep the affected update blocked and make the waiting work visible to the designated backup. Do not convert a timeout into silent approval.
This page defines the contents and boundaries of a proposed document review. Whether the receiving system actually carries that packet and preserves the hold needs an integration test. Our production acceptance guide covers testing the complete workflow, including failures beyond the model’s text.
Test the review with one difficult document
Choose a permitted example with the person who accepts the work. Start with the source pages, identify the exact unresolved field and write the question that person must answer. Then follow the packet through the actual receiving system. Verify that the reviewer can open the evidence, keep the case unresolved and record a decision without releasing an unauthorized update.
Repeat that exercise for missing pages, new form versions and an unavailable reviewer. Record lost evidence, incorrect updates, waiting cases and the time people spend finding or correcting information. The synthetic Q17 example explains what to examine; it cannot establish your extraction accuracy, useful confidence cutoff or staffing needs.
If the team later wants to reduce routine checks, treat that as a separate release decision with evidence from its actual workload. Our guide to moving from full review to sampling explains the conditions and what should restore full checks. First make sure the difficult document can reach a person who can resolve it.
What this method establishes
- The order, source excerpts, correction and roles are invented to make a review packet inspectable. They are not actual model outputs or a client deployment.
- The four conditions and handover record are MING’s proposed method. Technical sources support task-specific review; they do not validate this example or supply a universal release threshold.
- No extraction accuracy, review-time saving or working integration is claimed. Required approvals and access rules remain decisions for the actual organisation.
