This is a working perspective, not a universal rule. The right boundary depends on the work, the people affected, and the consequences of getting it wrong.
Capability is not the same as permission
An AI system may be able to produce an answer, recommendation, or decision. That does not settle whether it should do so, who should review it, or who remains accountable.
The boundary should be designed deliberately—not discovered after something fails.
Four questions for a real decision
- Accountability: Who answers for the outcome if it is wrong?
- Human impact: Could the decision affect someone’s opportunity, dignity, livelihood, or access?
- Judgment: Does the work depend on context, values, trust, or an understanding of a relationship?
- Voice: Can the people affected understand, question, or challenge what happens?
A simple handoff map
For each part of a workflow, choose one of four positions:
- Human-owned: A person does the work and owns the decision.
- AI-supported: AI helps with preparation, options, or analysis; a person decides.
- AI-executed, human-reviewed: AI completes a bounded task and a named person reviews it.
- Not delegated: The work remains human because the relationship, consequence, or responsibility requires it.
The boundary is a practice
A handoff that looks reasonable on paper may feel different in use. Teams need to test it with real work, notice failure modes, and revisit the boundary as the work and technology change.
Clear human ownership matters most when the system is uncertain, the situation is sensitive, or the answer affects another person.
Empowered handoff
The goal is not to keep every task human. It is to make a conscious choice about what AI supports while people retain meaningful agency and responsibility.