A person at the helm
How a person authorises irreversible actions
- ExplanationExplanationPublication typeA publication that explains one thing simply. It takes a few minutes to read.All terms
- ControlControlFieldHow people and AI colleagues work together safely.All terms
- 4 min read
- Draft, version 0.1
You are here
Step 02, A person at the helm
Who decides before AI sends something?
A person decides on content, recipient and action. AI can prepare a proposal; fixed checks can report findings. Neither replaces that decision. If the proposal changes, review the decision again.
Summary
- The question: how do you stay in controlControlTermA person decides what AI does and authorises irreversible actions. This is the core of our working policy.Read more: step 05, Stay in control of your AIAll terms when AI prepares an action with consequences beyond your workspace?
- What we did: we turned public working principles into a fictional exercise about a quotation.
- What we saw: preparation, checking and deciding each have a role. We measuredMeasuredTermFrom our own log, rather than estimated. In the night experiment, only the final counts were measured.Read more: step 03, A night in the workshopAll terms no improvement in safety.
- What it means: approval belongs to a specific proposal that you can inspect.
- The main limitation: a human decision can be wrong. This exercise does not demonstrate a safe implementation.
Approval belongs to a proposal
Before approval, put the content, recipient and version beside the decision. You can then assess what will actually happen.
A fingerprint does not make an amount or recipient correct. You still need to inspect the proposal.
Try a fictional quotation
This is a fictional exercise. The rule: a person sends after checking the content and recipient. Findings must be resolved first. Choose what follows that rule.
Step by stepTry it
What do you do with this quotation?
Choose what follows the rule in this fictional exercise.
An AI has prepared a quotation. You have not checked its content or recipient yet.
What happened: In this exercise the quotation stays inside. You inspect the proposal first, then decide about sending it.
Inspect first
You approved it. The recipient address then changed. You have not reviewed this version.
What happened: Here, the earlier approval does not cover the changed proposal. You review again what will go to whom.
Decide again
The check now reports an internal reference. The agreed rule requires resolving that finding first.
What happened: The quotation stays inside. After correction, the check and the decision are repeated for this version.
Resolve first
Inspect the proposal, resolve findings and decide on the version that will actually leave.
A check and a person do different work
A fixed checkFixed checkTermA series of checks in fixed code that returns green or red. Red means: do not deliver yet.All terms recognises agreed patterns. A person also assesses purpose and context. Passing a check does not prove an action is desirable. An earlier approval does not replace assessing new findings.
Method
We made three exercise steps from public rules on human approval and the gate for outgoing work. Each correct choice follows from the rule stated beforehand. We ran no model test and sent nothing.
What this evidence says
The working policy describes a method. The page Our commitments also sets research goals for data, model training, services and shared lessons. Those goals remain research goals. A written rule does not prove that every implementation follows it.
Limitations
- Not representative. ITARR’s workshopWorkshopTermWhere our AI colleagues and fixed rules work together, day and night. We share what we learn there in the Lab.All terms does not represent small and medium-sized businesses.
- Fictional exercise. No real quotations, clients or outcomes were used.
- No guarantee. People and checks can miss mistakes.
- No implementation manual. Who may decide, and which checks are needed, must be defined for each application.
What this means
Take one action your AI prepares. Before approval, can you see exactly what will happen, for whom and why? Start with that specific question.
Closing
With thanks to readers who examine the exercise critically.
How to cite: ITARR LabITARR LabNameITARR's public research. We share what we learn about staying in control of AI, freely available to use.All terms (2026). A person at the helm. Version 0.1, reference dateReference dateTermThe date on which the information in a publication was current. It may change afterwards.All terms 25-10-2026. itarr.eu/lab/de-mens-aan-het-roer. CC BY 4.0CC BYTermAn open licence. You may use, adapt and share a publication. Credit ITARR Lab, link to the licence and indicate any changes.All terms.
Sources: Regie over je AI, especially laws 1, 2 and 4; Onze afspraken. Both consulted on reference date 25-10-2026.
Change log: 0.1 (25-10-2026): first draftDraftTermAn initial version that has not yet been signed off. Here, a draft goes outside only after a person approves it.All terms with a fictional exercise.
Status: draft for review; not yet approved by a person.