Where Human Review Belongs in Automated Systems
Human review is most valuable where goals are ambiguous, consequences are significant or unusual cases exceed the evidence behind an automated system.
A publication by Sami Mechkor
Automation
Automation redesigns responsibility as well as work.
Browse articlesAutomation can remove repetition, but it also changes who sees a process, who can intervene and who carries the consequences of failure. These essays examine limits, exceptions, review and the operational discipline required for dependable automated systems.
Featured essay
Automation Changes Responsibility, Not Only Tasks
When a process becomes automated, responsibility moves across designers, operators and reviewers even when no one has deliberately assigned the new roles.
Read the essayRecent articles
Follow via RSSRead
Observability Is Essential to Dependable Automation
Automated processes become manageable when teams can see current state, trace important decisions and detect slow deterioration before visible failure.
Good Automation Makes Exceptions Visible
Exceptions are not inconvenient leftovers; they reveal where automated rules meet a more varied reality and where design or human judgment needs to improve.
Automation Should Preserve a Path to Intervention
People need a tested, understandable route to pause, correct and recover automated processes when goals change or conditions move beyond system limits.
About this publication
Automation by Sami Mechkor studies how work changes when decisions or actions are delegated to systems. It favours observable processes, explicit boundaries and practical paths for people to pause, inspect and correct outcomes.