Identify work with a clear review standard
Look for repeated analysis, document preparation, classification, or evidence gathering where people can judge the output. Record the current workflow, exceptions, data sensitivity, and cost of errors. A high-volume task can still be unsuitable if mistakes are difficult to detect or the organization cannot provide reliable source material and an accountable reviewer.
- ✓ Choose one process and a named business owner.
- ✓ Collect representative examples, including difficult and unsuccessful cases.
Design the human and system responsibilities
Decide what the system prepares and what people approve. Restrict access to the data needed for the task and define retention and vendor handling requirements. Where outputs affect employment, lending, health, or other consequential decisions, obtain domain-specific review before deployment. General marketing automation guidance does not establish legal fitness for those uses.
- ✓ Use structured outputs where downstream validation is possible.
- ✓ Keep an alternative process available when the system is unavailable.
Run a pilot that can fail honestly
Compare assisted work with the existing process using agreed criteria. Measure correction effort, reliability, and user acceptance alongside speed. Include integration and maintenance cost in the evaluation. Scale only when the pilot supports a specific decision; a compelling demo or confident answer is not evidence that the workflow is ready for unattended execution.
- ✓ Set stop conditions and an evaluation period.
- ✓ Document what the pilot established and what remains uncertain.