Use one resource on one bounded decision route.
Locate where AI shaped the pathway, inspect what the reviewer could see and change, and preserve the evidence needed to reconstruct authority, escalation, rationale and final commitment.
One outcome, one consequence, one AI contribution, one human review boundary and one commitment point.
A public check supports first-pass inspection. It does not produce assurance, certification or an ID∆AC™ diagnostic conclusion.
What can the surviving record not yet establish?
Each pathway appears once. Read the underlying problem, listen when interpretation helps, then use the artefact on the selected route.
Who actually had the authority to make the consequence real?
Separate authority to review, challenge or approve an AI-assisted decision from the authority that actually commits the organisation to its consequence. A reviewer may participate meaningfully in the route without being the actor who makes the outcome operationally binding.
Could the reviewer genuinely intervene?
Test practical visibility, time, alternatives, challenge, escalation and authority—not merely whether a human appeared in the workflow.
Where did AI shape the route—and what never reached human review?
The same article supports two distinct inspections. One locates technical influence across the pathway; the other examines cases, evidence, risks or alternatives that became less visible before review.
What does the approval record actually prove?
Examine whether one approval record preserves evidence of reviewer view, challenge, live alternatives, usable authority, contemporaneous rationale and attributable commitment.
Did the reasoning exist before commitment?
Separate contemporaneous judgement from explanation written or materially strengthened after the outcome was known. Place system output, review, commitment, effect and later rationale on one timeline.
Was escalation still usable before commitment?
Examine whether warning signals could reach someone with usable authority, in enough time to pause, redirect or challenge the route—and whether a decision not to escalate remains visible.
Can the route be rebuilt without relying on memory?
Test whether system influence, evidence, human interpretation, alternatives, escalation, authority and final commitment remain connected in the surviving record.
One consequential route remains materially unclear.
Preserve the specific uncertainty and supporting record. Complete the Intake without sensitive material, then use Scope Review to test fit, boundary and readiness before an Exposure Diagnostic is proposed.
These public materials support orientation, preparation and bounded first-pass inspection. They do not constitute legal advice, certification, conformity assessment, technical model audit, independent validation, diagnostic scoring or a finding about the organisation as a whole.