---
id: governance.human-approval-boundaries
title: Human Approval Boundaries
summary: Define which AI-assisted suggestions require accountable human review before becoming standards.
kind: reference
product_area: governance
status: stable
updated: 2026-09-07
canonical: /docs/governance/human-approval-boundaries
---

# Human Approval Boundaries

## Definition

Human approval boundaries separate preparation from governed correctness evidence. A suggestion, reviewer comment, interview answer, or draft standard can inform the loop, but it should not govern benchmark interpretation until the relevant human approval state is clear.

Use this page when prepared or contributed material is about to become a governed Policy, Rubric, Case-scoped reference output, or selected Benchmark Dataset evidence.

Comparison Directions are a narrower configuration object, not a governed standard. An AI-suggested Comparison Direction can be active without a separate approval step, but generated Cases, Benchmark membership, Policies, Rubrics, and reference outputs still follow their owning review or approval boundaries. A customer-owned human review packet is assembled from evidence; it is not a Teammately approval state.

> Approval is a state transition
>
> AI-assisted suggestions do not become governed standards until an accountable human approves the relevant artifact.

## Fields, states, or lifecycle rules

- Draft suggestions and reviewer notes are preparation material.
- Approved Policies and Rubrics, reviewed Case changes, selected Dataset membership, and supported Case-scoped reference outputs can affect governed evidence.
- AI-suggested Comparison Directions can affect future variant generation as active directions, but they do not approve the generated cases or standards they help explore.
- Approval should name the artifact being approved, not only the discussion that produced it.
- Stale or superseded approvals should be visible before older benchmark evidence is reused.
- This page does not claim external compliance approval, legal signoff, or production deployment authorization.

## Related objects

Read this with [What AI Features Can and Cannot Do](/docs/governance/what-ai-features-can-and-cannot-do), [Comparison Directions](/docs/assets/comparison-directions), [Approving Suggested Policies](/docs/correctness-governance/policies-and-rubrics), [Editing Suggested Rubrics](/docs/correctness-governance/policies-and-rubrics), and [Approval History and Reviewer Activity](/docs/governance/approval-history-and-reviewer-activity).

{% example-demo title="Human Approval Boundaries boundary" %}
Reviewer context: Several experts reject unsupported refund exceptions.

Suggested policy: The system proposes a policy that exceptions require approved support.

Approval boundary: The suggestion becomes governed only when a human owner approves the policy and its applicability.

Benchmark interpretation: Runs should cite the approved policy, not the unapproved suggestion that preceded it.
{% /example-demo %}

## Source confidence

Code-backed: Policy approval and activity components expose accountable approval state and history; contributed-artifact types keep expert learning distinct from materialized governed objects. Comparison Directions deliberately use active, archived, and advisory-stale behavior instead of the Policy approval lifecycle.

## Related task pages

{% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %}
- [What AI Features Can and Cannot Do](/docs/governance/what-ai-features-can-and-cannot-do)
- [Comparison Directions](/docs/assets/comparison-directions)
- [Review Policies and Rubrics](/docs/correctness-governance/policies-and-rubrics)
- [Product quickstart](/docs/quickstart)
- [Task index](/docs/operating-manual/task-index)
{% /related-card-grid %}