The initial use case should be defined by a bounded task, a clear human review point, and a documented oversight process. The team should be able to explain what starts the workflow, what the add-on is expected to do, what output enters the existing process, and where a person reviews that output after the prompt action. The NIST AI RMF material says human-oversight processes should be defined, assessed, and documented, while the prompt-flow guidance describes placing a human review step after the prompt action.
How to check the workflow fit
The following checklist translates those points into practical questions. It is implementation guidance, not a claim that the cited sources prescribe a particular tool or configuration.
| Question | What the team should be able to specify |
|---|---|
| Is the task bounded? | The trigger, relevant input, intended action, expected output, and point at which the task ends. |
| Where does review occur? | A defined point after the prompt action and before the output is used further in the workflow. |
| What does review involve? | What the reviewer examines, what an unacceptable result looks like, and what happens when review is not completed. |
| How is oversight documented? | Who is responsible, how the process is assessed, and where decisions and revisions are recorded. |
| How does the add-on fit the existing workflow? | Which core tool remains in use, where the add-on begins and ends, and how its output is passed onward. |
| Is the purpose testable? | What the team will examine on representative tasks without assuming a particular quality, time saving, or business result. |
A use case becomes clearer when these answers can be demonstrated on representative workflow examples. Broad goals such as “add AI” or “make the process better” do not yet define the review boundary, the expected output, or the team’s decision-making responsibility.
What still needs separate confirmation
The cited materials do not establish permissions, data-handling rules, service commitments, fees, legal compliance, or expected performance for any particular add-on. Before approval, the team must separately confirm:
- applicable security, privacy, access, retention, and internal approval requirements;
- whether the reviewer has the necessary access, authority, and capacity;
- whether the proposed use satisfies any relevant contractual or regulatory obligations;
- how the workflow will behave when the add-on is unavailable or the output fails review; and
- how performance will be evaluated on representative tasks.
Human review should therefore be treated as a documented workflow control, not as proof of compliance or a guarantee of quality. Until the remaining conditions are confirmed, the proposed use case remains a candidate rather than an approved implementation.