Review identity cues when an agent changes tools

When to use this guide

A research agent moves from a local assistant to an external generated answer while retaining a label that says human reviewed.

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. Document tool transitions that change message origin or review status.

2. Compare the displayed participant and review labels with actual execution records.

3. Test tool failure and fallback paths using synthetic tasks.

4. Correct misleading status text and retain a representative transition record.

What the example review finds

• The human-reviewed label persists without a human review event.

• A fallback answer comes from a different service than the UI claims.

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

• Tool transition

• Message origin

• Displayed claim

• Review event

• Fallback result

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

A tool switch does not automatically require a new legal notice; the actual system and interaction need assessment.

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.