This guide helps you decide where humans belong in the loop, choose the right approval shape, and set escalation thresholds before you encounter an incident in production. For a reference on the mechanics of creating approval requests — how to write SOP instructions, respond via Slack, or manage the Activity Inbox — see Human-in-the-Loop.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.duvo.ai/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
When to Add an Approval Step
Not every step needs human review. Use this risk framework to decide where approval gates add genuine value and where they only add friction.Risk tier framework
| Tier | Action type | Examples | Default stance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — Irreversible external | Sends something that cannot be recalled or undone | Outbound email, publish to public channel, submit a payment | Always gate |
| 2 — Destructive internal | Removes or overwrites data | Delete records, overwrite fields, archive items | Always gate |
| 3 — High-value transaction | Financial or compliance impact above a threshold | Approve purchase order, grant access, sign contract | Gate above threshold |
| 4 — Ambiguous interpretation | Assignment cannot reliably determine intent | Categorizing a one-off case, routing to the right team | Gate on low-confidence matches |
| 5 — Routine and reversible | Can be corrected without consequence | Tagging a record, updating a status, creating a draft | Skip the gate |
Decision criteria by action category
| Category | Gate? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Send email to external recipient | Yes | Include recipient, subject, and full body in the request |
| Post to a public Slack channel | Yes | Include the channel name and draft text |
| Submit a financial transaction | Yes | Include amount, recipient, and reference number |
| Modify or delete a customer record | Yes | Include the record ID and the proposed change |
| Reply to an internal thread | Usually not | Gate only if the reply is policy-sensitive |
| Tag or label a record | No | Reversible; iterate without a gate |
| Create a draft (not sent) | No | Show in the approval request instead of gating during creation |
Choosing the Right Approval Shape
The Human-in-the-Loop connection supports three request types. Picking the right one keeps operators efficient and prevents ambiguous responses.Approval (confirm or reject)
Use when the assignment has already determined what to do and just needs a go/no-go before acting. When it fits: The assignment is about to send an email, submit a payment, or delete a batch of records. SOP pattern:Question (choose from options)
Use when the right next step depends on context the assignment does not have, and the options are well-defined. When it fits: The assignment needs to route a case, choose a tone, or decide between two valid policies. SOP pattern:- Keep option labels short and action-oriented.
- Make options mutually exclusive — if they overlap, the operator will guess.
- Do not add an “Other” option unless you also tell the assignment what to do with a free-text answer.
When to use free-text instead
Free-text operator input makes sense when the operator needs to supply content, not just choose a path: dictating a reply, providing context about an anomaly, or overriding a specific field value. Risk: Free-text answers must be parsed by the assignment in its next step. If the assignment expects a decision but gets prose, it may misinterpret. Only use free-text when the assignment’s SOP explicitly handles open-ended input. Common mistake: Using a free-text question where a structured Question would do. Structured options are faster for operators and produce more reliable downstream behavior.Designing Fallback and Escalation Behavior
Every approval gate needs an explicit answer to “what happens if no one responds?” Without a defined fallback, the assignment stalls indefinitely or makes an unsafe assumption.Timeout → escalate or fail-safe
Decide up front: if the operator does not respond within a reasonable window, should the assignment escalate or default to the safe action? Escalate pattern:Repeated rejection → halt
If the operator rejects the same action multiple times, the assignment has likely misunderstood the requirement. Continuing to loop wastes operator time.Multi-tier escalation
For high-stakes workflows, define a clear escalation chain so a request never hangs waiting for a single person.Using Case Queue to Manage Exceptions at Scale
When an assignment processes many cases, the Activity Inbox becomes a bottleneck. The Case Queue is the right tool for managing exceptions across high-volume workflows.Triage pattern
- Consumer assignment processes cases automatically.
- Cases that need a human decision surface as Needs Input in the queue.
- An operator reviews the Needs Input filter, responds in the case detail panel, and the assignment resumes.
- Cases the assignment cannot resolve at all land as Failed — the operator reviews, updates the case data, and retries.
Bulk delegation for surges
When a backlog of Needs Input cases accumulates, you can select multiple cases and delegate them to a specialist assignment — one designed specifically for exception handling — rather than asking one person to respond to dozens of individual HITL requests.Aging and escalation logic
For cases that sit in Needs Input beyond an acceptable window:Ramping Toward Safe Autonomy
The goal is not maximum oversight — it is the right level of oversight. As an assignment matures, you should expect to remove approval gates where they no longer provide signal.Step 1: Start with gates on every risky branch
When you first deploy an assignment, add approval gates on all Tier 1–2 actions and any branch where you are unsure what the assignment will do.Step 2: Measure the approval rate
After a few weeks of production traffic, review the pattern of approvals and denials in the Activity Inbox or the Jobs list. Estimate the approval rate per gate.- Approval rate above ~95%: The assignment is getting it right consistently. Consider removing the gate and trusting the output directly.
- Approval rate below ~70%: The assignment is frequently wrong. Refine the SOP before removing the gate.
- High denial rate with a consistent pattern: The assignment is doing the same wrong thing repeatedly. Update the SOP to correct the root behavior.
Step 3: Remove gates selectively
Remove gates one at a time, in order of confidence. Monitor the next two weeks of output. If quality holds, the gate can stay removed. Do not remove a gate if:- The action is irreversible and errors are high-cost.
- Volume is too low to measure a meaningful approval rate.
- You have changed something in the connected systems recently.
Step 4: Re-introduce gates when conditions change
Re-add approval gates when:- You modify the SOP in ways that could affect the gated branch.
- The assignment gains access to a new system.
- Volume increases significantly (edge cases appear at scale that were rare before).
- Approval rate drops during a quarterly review.
Worked Examples
Expense report approval — threshold-based gate
The assignment auto-handles low-value expenses and escalates high-value ones through a structured flow.Customer response email — tone check before send
The assignment drafts a reply and holds it for review before sending.Supplier follow-up — timeout escalation
The assignment follows up on outstanding purchase orders and escalates if no response arrives.Related
- Human-in-the-Loop — Reference for request types and responding via Slack, Teams, and the Activity Inbox
- Activity Inbox — Managing and responding to pending approval requests
- Case Queue — Queue-based exception handling for high-volume workflows
- Guardrails for High-Risk Automations — Risk classification, hard caps, allow/deny lists, and kill switch procedures
- Refining Your Assignment — Using HITL approval feedback to improve your SOP
- Expense Report Approval — Full tutorial showing threshold-based approvals
- Reviewing Drafts Before Sending — Full tutorial showing draft review before outbound communication