Attribute messages in a multi-agent workspace

When to use this guide

A workspace displays researcher, lawyer and manager avatars even though every participant is generated by one orchestration system.

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. List the participant names and the actual systems behind them.

2. Review whether role labels could imply real people or professional credentials.

3. Check attribution in combined summaries, exports and handoff messages.

4. Record wording changes and any unresolved claims for product and legal review.

What the example review finds

• The lawyer persona suggests a qualified human professional.

• The final summary removes all indications of automated authorship.

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

• Displayed persona

• Actual system

• Credential claim

• Summary attribution

• Review decision

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

Identity wording does not confer professional qualifications or establish the accuracy of agent output.

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.