“Someone will review it” sounds like a complete answer until you ask what the reviewer will actually see.
Will they have the original information? Can they identify what changed? Do they have enough context to reject an output, and a practical way to correct it? A review step can become a bottleneck or a rubber stamp if the product does not support the judgment it asks for.
Define the decision being delegated
Imagine an assistant that prepares a proposed update to a supplier record. The human reviewer could be checking the extracted details, deciding whether the source is authoritative, or approving a change to an operating system. Those are different responsibilities.
Name them separately. A person who can verify a document's address may not have authority to change payment instructions. The product should not collapse those decisions into one convenient approval button.
Also distinguish drafting from acting. A proposed change can be inspected without giving the assistant permission to execute it. When execution is allowed, the approved action and its limits should remain clear to the reviewer.
Put the evidence next to the choice
A review screen should help someone compare the proposal with the relevant source and current state. Highlight the fields that would change. Make missing or contradictory information visible. Give the reviewer a route to the source rather than forcing a separate search for it.
Avoid asking people to infer uncertainty from the fluency of an explanation. A confident paragraph is not a substitute for evidence. If a value cannot be supported, the product should make that situation explicit and allow the work to stop or move to an exception path.
The arrangement matters as much as the presence of the information. A reviewer who must open several windows and remember values between them is doing additional reconciliation work that should be included when assessing the feature's value.
Design rejection as carefully as approval
A useful review process needs more than yes and no. The reviewer may need to correct one field, ask for more information, or return the item to someone with the right authority.
Record the reason at a useful level without turning every decision into a writing exercise. Those reasons can show which cases the system handles poorly and which belong outside its scope. Keep enough history to understand what was proposed and what a person actually accepted.
Test the process with intentionally incorrect proposals in a safe environment. Can reviewers detect the problem using the provided evidence? Can they act on it without assistance from the implementation team? This evaluates the product's support for review, not merely whether a reviewer is present.
Human judgment is a responsibility the interface must make possible. If the system depends on that judgment, the review experience belongs in the first version of the product.