Worked example
Support triage and handoff preparation.
A realistic design for helping a busy support team classify requests, gather approved context, prepare an internal handoff, and learn from reviewer corrections without letting AI close tickets or make customer commitments.
Source layer
Start with the records the workflow is allowed to trust.
A useful assistant needs approved sources, current ownership, access rules, and visible gaps before it can prepare work for review.
AI may
Prepare work for accountable review.
- Suggest topic, urgency, and likely owner.
- Retrieve approved context available to the support role.
- Draft an internal summary and next-check list.
- Flag missing records, conflicts, and escalation signals.
- Draft customer-facing language only when a human review gate is required.
AI may never
Cross the authority boundary.
- Close, merge, or materially change a ticket without authority.
- Promise a credit, timeline, fix, or contractual outcome.
- Expose restricted account or customer data.
- Hide uncertainty, missing context, or conflicting sources.
- Send a customer-facing response without the required approval.
End-to-end workflow
Each handoff names the AI role, accountable authority, and evidence.
The example keeps uncertainty and exceptions visible. A plausible draft is never a substitute for an approved decision.
| Step | AI may | Authority stays with | Evidence captured |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Receive and classify | Read the request, suggest topic and urgency, and identify likely ownership. | Queue owners confirm priority rules, customer-impact definitions, and routing boundaries. | Request ID, suggested class, confidence, rule version, and final queue. |
| 2. Add approved context | Retrieve current account, product, service, and known-issue context available to the support role. | Access policy and source owners determine which records are current and visible. | Source IDs, access result, freshness, missing context, and conflicts. |
| 3. Prepare the handoff | Summarize the issue, evidence already gathered, likely next checks, and unresolved questions. | A support specialist corrects the summary and selects the receiving owner. | Draft handoff, cited records, reviewer edits, and disposition. |
| 4. Review risk and exceptions | Flag security, safety, contractual, high-value, outage, or repeated-failure signals. | Named escalation owners decide severity and response path. | Exception type, owner, decision, reason, and response target. |
| 5. Approve any customer-facing work | Draft a response from approved language when the workflow allows it. | A person approves, changes, or rejects the response before sending. | Approved source, reviewer, edits, approval state, and sent version. |
| 6. Learn from the outcome | Group corrections, reroutes, reopen reasons, and source gaps for review. | Support owners decide which rules, sources, and eval cases change. | Final resolution, reroute, reopen, correction, and source-update task. |
Example private evals
Judge the workflow against organization-specific review standards.
These evaluation categories show how workflow owners can set baselines, thresholds, review responses, and release gates before implementation.
| Evaluation | What it measures | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| Routing accuracy | Whether the final queue and owner match the reviewed classification. | Reroutes become labeled test cases and rule-review inputs. |
| Handoff completeness | Whether the receiving owner has the required source context and open questions. | Missing context blocks handoff or creates a source task. |
| Unsupported statement rate | Whether a prepared summary or response introduces claims absent from approved records. | Unsupported content is rejected and added to the eval set. |
| Reviewer change rate | Material corrections made by qualified support reviewers. | Frequent changes trigger workflow, prompt, source, or authority review. |
| Operating outcome | Time to useful action, reopen rate, and backlog aging without claiming a result in advance. | Observed trends inform expand, tune, hold, or stop decisions. |
Feedback loop
Review decisions should improve the next cycle.
The useful output is not only the prepared work. It is the record of corrections, exceptions, dispositions, and source gaps that makes future work easier to review.
Apply the pattern
Have a similar workflow that needs a defensible next step?
Start with the sources, authority, review path, evaluation evidence, and outcome decision. Verdify can help determine whether an audit, knowledge pass, or workflow sprint comes first.