Review AI identity in background-task results

When to use this guide

A document agent completes a task overnight and posts a result that looks like a staff-authored approval message.

This is a fictional implementation scenario. The procedure below is Article 50 Hub's suggested working method, not a prescribed legal form, a customer result or a claim that every step is an additional statutory requirement.

Review procedure

1. Map where the result is displayed and whether a person can interact directly from it.

2. Identify generated content and any real review or approval events.

3. Test delayed delivery, expired sessions and links into the original task.

4. Preserve the task and output version needed to explain what was shown.

What the example review finds

• The result message implies human approval without a review.

• The notification opens a different task version than the attached output.

Keep these example observations separate from your own results. An unknown or untested state should stay open until the relevant evidence has been inspected.

Fields for your working record

• Task reference

• Output version

• Display surface

• Review status

• Return path

Use the downloadable blank worksheet linked on this page to connect the observed behavior with the deployed system. Add a reviewer, date, evidence reference, unresolved questions and a next action. The worksheet is editable locally and does not upload your records to Article 50 Hub.

Completion and handoff

Close the task only for the scope actually reviewed. Preserve the result that another authorized reviewer can reproduce, identify the owner of remaining work, and record a retest when the implementation changes. A completed worksheet is not a substitute for the underlying evidence.

Decision boundary

Background processing alone does not determine the applicable Article 50 obligation; assess the actual exposure and interaction.

The official references below provide legal or technical context. Resolve applicability and exception questions with the responsible qualified reviewer; use the product's tools to organize implementation work within that assessment.