Our summary
Some steps in a business process need judgment rather than a fixed rule. Kai Waehner describes asking Jev to assess those cases, then sending them along different paths. The workflow, which coordinates the steps, still decides whether to act automatically, use a language model or ask a person.
Code compares the model's answer with agreed cutoffs and records the path taken. The record also keeps the model version, cutoff and eventual outcome. Before changing the live process, a trial can score cases alongside the existing decisions without letting those scores control what happens.
This is an architecture proposal, not a measured implementation. A probability does not guarantee that an answer is correct, and changing the model can change its behavior. Approved rules remain clearer when an exact explanation is required. Cases sent to the hosted service also leave the organization's own systems.
Key takeaways
- Let the workflow own the cutoffs and fallback paths instead of treating the model's probability as permission to act.
- Record answers, model versions, review decisions and outcomes so thresholds can be checked against real cases.
- Start with a parallel trial that cannot alter live decisions. Keep exact approved rules for cases that must be explained line by line.