---
id: playbooks.enterprise-assistant-review
title: Running Expert Contributions for an Enterprise Assistant
summary: Collect expert judgment for assistants that must follow product, domain, and policy expectations.
kind: recipe
product_area: playbooks
status: stable
updated: 2026-08-23
canonical: /docs/playbooks/running-expert-contributions-enterprise-assistant
---

# Running Expert Contributions for an Enterprise Assistant

Use this playbook when an enterprise assistant needs domain experts to judge outputs before the team turns that judgment into standards and benchmarks.

## Contribution boundary

Use this when a named specialist must resolve a bounded correctness question that prepared Cases and source context cannot answer automatically. Do not use a Contribution as a general request to “review the assistant.”

## Request and complete the work

1. Name the decision the expert owns and select the smallest set of Cases that exposes it.
2. Prepare the Project Agent Brief, source material, Case context, questions, and allowed response form before sending the request.
3. In the Benchmark's **Expert Contributions** workspace, choose the recipient, Tasks, materials, and any Checkpoints required to confirm progress or handoff.
4. Pilot the Contribution with one specialist and verify that the recipient can enter the executable Task and has enough context to answer.
5. Preserve expert responses, rationale, unresolved questions, and Checkpoint state as Contribution provenance.
6. Inspect **Contributed Artifacts** and reconcile candidate Policies, Rubrics, Cases, or coverage observations into their owning project surfaces.
7. Apply the owning approval and version controls. Contribution completion does not automatically approve a Policy, Rubric, reference response, or Dataset membership change.

## Contribution is complete when

The required Tasks and Checkpoints have reached their terminal states, the expert's attributable answer is preserved, and every contributed artifact is either reconciled, rejected through its owning workflow, or left explicitly unresolved.

{% example-demo title="Procurement assistant review" %}
A procurement specialist receives five Cases that differ by spend authority, vendor category, and contract status. The Contribution asks one bounded question: who must approve each purchase, and what source controls that answer? The specialist completes the Tasks, explains two exceptions, and confirms the proposed boundary at a Checkpoint. Contributed Policies and Rubrics retain that provenance but become governed only after the accountable owner approves them in Correctness Governance.
{% /example-demo %}

## Evidence to collect

- Cases, candidate outputs, Project Agent Brief, source context, and constraints shown to reviewers.
- Checkpoint or interview records that capture reviewer rationale.
- Attributable expert answers, rationale, unresolved concerns, and Checkpoint state.
- Contributed artifacts and their reconciliation into Cases, Policies, Rubrics, or coverage observations.
- Benchmark coverage and run results produced after standards are approved.

## Related docs

{% related-card-grid title="Related docs" %}
- [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution)
- [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution)
- [Inspect Contributed Artifacts](/docs/expert-contributions/contributed-artifacts)
- [Read run results](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/inspect-results)
- [Run a benchmark](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-evaluation)
- [Importing cases](/docs/operating-manual/import-and-prepare-cases)
{% /related-card-grid %}

## Source confidence

Doctrine-backed: the approved product model treats expert work as attributable contribution rather than automatic approval. Linked code-backed pages define request composition, executable Tasks, Checkpoints, lifecycle, and contributed-artifact reconciliation.