A reviewer needs an actual job.
Adding “a human checks the output” to a project description does not define a workflow. Someone needs to know which outputs require review, what evidence to inspect, and how to record a correction.
Put uncertainty where it can be acted on.
Missing source material, inconsistent names, and contradictory dates should appear alongside the affected finding. A single confidence score cannot explain every kind of uncertainty. Use specific flags that tell the reviewer what happened.
Make the original easy to inspect.
Show an extracted finding beside its source excerpt. Preserve the document name and location. Let reviewers reject an extraction without losing the underlying material, and keep a record of their correction when the workflow needs one.
Decide which actions need approval.
Finding a clause, drafting a summary, and sending a client communication carry different consequences. Define the approval point for each action during scoping. Keep legal interpretation and professional decisions with the responsible people.
Test the handoff, too.
Evaluate how quickly reviewers can find the source, correct a mistake, and resume work. A system that writes quickly but takes longer to verify may simply move the cost to another person.
An EPP.AL perspective on workflow and technology. It does not provide legal, investment, or compliance advice.