An AI add-on should be introduced without silently changing the existing workflow, approval checkpoints, downstream-action conditions, or definition of completion. Prompt output can be passed into later actions, and an approval action can keep a run waiting for a reviewer’s response; neither capability, by itself, requires the surrounding process to be redesigned.
Keep these boundaries unchanged
| Boundary | What should remain unchanged | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Existing workflow | The required steps and their sequence | The add-on has a defined insertion point rather than bypassing or reordering existing work |
| Approval checkpoint | The point at which reviewer participation is required | The run continues waiting until the reviewer responds |
| Prompt-to-action handoff | The variables and inputs expected by downstream actions | Prompt output is assigned only to the intended downstream input |
| Decision conditions | The rules that determine which action runs next | Generated output does not unintentionally change an existing condition |
| Completion rule | What must happen before the run is considered complete | Producing prompt output alone is not treated as completing the wider process |
The distinction is important: the ability to pass prompt output forward does not mean that every downstream action should accept that output automatically. Likewise, an approval that waits for a response does not establish who should respond, how rejection should be handled, or when the wider process is complete.
How to check the adoption boundary
- Record the current workflow, including its approval points, decision conditions, and final completion step.
- Mark exactly where the add-on enters that workflow.
- Use a controlled test case to inspect the prompt output and its mapping to downstream variables.
- Start an approval path and confirm that the run remains in a waiting state until a response is received.
- Review the downstream actions against the existing process to identify any changed order, condition, data destination, or completion rule.
- Treat any such change as a separate process decision requiring its own review, rather than as an automatic effect of adding the AI capability.
What still requires confirmation
The cited documentation establishes the two capabilities discussed above, but it does not settle an organization’s operating requirements. Those still need confirmation before adoption.
This includes:
- which person or role should approve a run;
- what permissions, licensing, and costs apply;
- how information is handled, retained, and protected;
- what happens after rejection, a timeout, or an escalation;
- whether particular prompt output is valid for each downstream field;
- what manual or fallback process applies if the add-on is unavailable;
- whether the unchanged workflow already satisfies relevant contractual, legal, or internal policy obligations.
Those points should remain explicitly unverified rather than inferred from the existence of prompt processing or approval actions. The practical adoption rule is therefore narrow: introduce the add-on at a defined point, preserve the existing approval and downstream decision structure, and require a separate decision before any surrounding process changes. This is an adoption control, not a legal conclusion or a guarantee of performance.