AI Governance in Practice
Who checks an AI draft before it leaves the building
5 min read · Updated 2026-11-08
The tool does not own the send button
Generating a reply, a policy paragraph, or a social post takes minutes. Sending it is the act that matters. Decide which outputs can go out after the author's own read, and which need a second person. A useful split is: internal brainstorming can stay with the author; anything a customer, an applicant, a patient, or the public will rely on needs a named reviewer.
The reviewer needs time and the authority to say no. A check that always happens five minutes before a deadline is a signature, not a review.
Tell the reviewer what to look for
Ask them to check three things. Is the fact actually true in our records? Does the tone promise something we do not offer? Does the text include a name, a number, or a quote that should not be there? Those three catch the failures teams see most often. A general instruction to "make sure it's fine" does not.
Keep a short note when a draft was corrected, especially if the same mistake appears again. The note is how you improve the instruction you give the tool next time.
Match the check to the harm
A caption for an internal photo does not need the same review as a letter about someone's account. Write the heavier checks next to the heavier outputs. If everything is marked urgent, nothing is reviewed. If you cannot name the reviewer for a class of output, that class is not ready to be automated.
This is general education, not legal advice. Some sectors require a qualified person to sign particular documents. A general writing tool does not replace that person.
This article is general education, not legal advice. ComplianceEU Alliance is an independent private initiative, not a regulator or certification body.