PRODUCTION SCENARIO
A generated recommendation drives the decision to decline a customer's insurance claim. Regulation requires the insurer to name who made each decision and explain it to the customer on request.
Which operating design meets that requirement?
Answering here is anonymous. Nothing is saved unless you sign in.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A named reviewer approves each decision and records the reason
The regulation sets the bar: a person to name for each decision, and a reason to give the customer. Only a per-decision approval with the reasoning recorded produces both. Confidence-based routing is a real design and fails here for a specific reason - a model's confidence is not calibrated to how much harm an error causes, so the high-confidence declines reach the customer with nobody named against them. A weekly sample audit is sound governance that names a reviewer for a few decisions and leaves the rest unattributed, after the fact. A compliance rule engine checks each recommendation and is not a person, so it satisfies neither half of the requirement, however consistent it is.