Make AI-assisted decisions traceable.
ARE Global reviews how sources, AI outputs, human checks, and final actions connect within a defined workflow. The work identifies evidence gaps, unclear authority, and the controls needed before an output becomes a decision.
Review one AI-assisted workflow.
Start with a process such as document summarization, case preparation, or a recommendation routed to a human reviewer. Written scope defines the decision, information boundary, workflow version, selected records, and review audience.
When this review fits
Reviewers cannot trace output to sources. Approval checks are undefined. Exceptions expand AI’s role. Changes to prompts, tools, or models are not reflected in the decision record.
The question it answers
Can the selected record show what AI contributed, what a human checked, what remained uncertain, and who authorized the final action?
Review focus: The assignment examines workflow controls and evidence. It does not certify a model, approve deployment, or establish performance beyond the agreed evaluation.
Define the gates around the output.
Purpose and permitted use
The decision supported, affected parties, authorized AI role, prohibited actions, and conditions for pausing or using a non-AI route.
Sources and output
Source provenance, currency, missing context, contradictions, and the basis for material statements in the output.
Human review and escalation
Required checks, reviewer competence and evidence access, authority to reject or correct, and escalation when uncertainty remains.
Change and decision records
Recorded configuration, material changes, selected evaluation results, reviewer actions, exceptions, and the final approval basis.
Authorized red-team analysis may examine missing-source scenarios, conflicting evidence, time pressure, and exception handling. Live tests, integrations, or system access require separate explicit authorization.
Agree the workflow and evidence set first.
Typical inputs
- Use and authority
- Process map, permitted AI role, internal policy, responsible functions, and the decision deadline.
- Selected examples
- Authorized, minimized source references, output samples, reviewer notes, and exception records.
- Configuration and limits
- Available model or tool identifiers, instructions, retrieval settings, change records, and known visibility limits.
Scope before access
- Selection
- Define example selection and evaluation criteria. Record what findings can support beyond the selected examples.
- Information boundary
- Agree what may be reviewed and which tools, if any, may process it. Use synthetic or redacted material where sufficient.
- Handling
- Confirm sharing authority, approved transfer, access, retention, and return or disposal arrangements.
No attachments, API keys, credentials, confidential prompts, or restricted source material in an initial inquiry. Begin with a non-sensitive workflow description.
An AI decision-quality record with owned review gates.
1. Workflow control matrix
Permitted role, source requirement, expected safeguard, available evidence, gap, and selection limit.
2. Decision-quality record
AI contribution, human checks, rejected or corrected statements, unresolved questions, version references, and final decision owner.
3. Remediation register
Required change, accountable owner, target date, validation evidence, and closure condition.
The written scope selects the necessary combination and format. A focused review may use one combined document.
Acceptance criteria: Material findings trace to reviewed evidence, AI output and human judgment remain distinguishable, review gates have named owners, and limitations and closure requirements are explicit. Acceptance does not establish certification, universal accuracy, fairness, or safety.
Review the delivery methodA summary marks an unresolved item complete.
In this invented scenario, a source record lists an approval as pending. An AI-generated summary states that approval is complete.
Required human check
Compare the material completion claim with the source. Reject the unsupported statement and preserve the pending status in the corrected record.
Closure condition
The designated reviewer records the correction and approval basis. The workflow owner examines the failure path and validates any proposed control change against agreed examples.
Fictional example only. No client workflow, measured model performance, or completed remediation is represented.
Explore work-product formats and the payment-review demonstrationGive human review the authority to change the outcome.
The review design should specify what a person checks, which evidence they can inspect, and when they must reject, correct, pause, or escalate. A reviewer needs authority and time to carry out those checks.
Alfonso Ramon Evans, Founder & Principal Consultant, is responsible for ARE Global’s client-facing advisory work. AI may assist analysis and drafting; material conclusions require human review. The client’s authorized owner retains operational and deployment decisions.
Founder accountabilityCurrent public status and full service boundaries are maintained in the Trust Center.
Bring the use case and the review gap.
Describe your organization, AI role, decision supported, current human checks, and timing. Federal buyers and prime teams can identify the proposed work package and contracting context.
alfonso.evans@