---
title: "Record that a person reviewed an automated output"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/human-review-of-automated-output"
type: "precedent"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "a45-human-review-of-automated-output"
area_id: "A45"
kind: "form"
ai_level: "yellow"
version: 1
task_ids: ["A45-T1-R1", "A45-A20260923-2"]
law_stated_as_at: "2026-10-22"
---

# Record that a person reviewed an automated output

> Short record that a named person reviewed one automated output before anyone acted on it, what they checked, and whether they departed from it. It does not say that human review removes a privacy-policy duty.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/human-review-of-automated-output  
Law stated as at: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

- Kind: Form. A form to complete, or a guide to completing an official one.
- Practice area: [AI decision systems](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems.md)
- Jurisdictions: Australia
- AI level: Yellow. You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
- Law stated as at: 2026-10-22
- Status: Maintained. Checked on 2026-10-22 against the 3 authorities it cites, for Australia.

## When to use it

Use each time a person is required, by the firm's or the client's own rule, to review an automated output before it is acted on. It is not a statutory form and it is not sworn evidence.

## Used for these tasks

- [Map automated decisions that affect individuals in the firm's or client's system](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/map-automated-decisions-that-affect-individuals-in-the-firm-s-or-client.md)
- [Draft a privacy-impact or algorithmic-impact assessment for the system](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/draft-a-privacy-impact-or-algorithmic-impact-assessment-for-the-system.md)

## How AI may be used

AI may open a blank record and insert the system name and the output identifier from the log. The reviewer writes what they checked and how they decided.

**AI may:**

- Create the record with the system name, time and output identifier taken from the log
- Leave the reviewer's narrative empty

**AI must not:**

- Must not write the reviewer's reasons or state that the output was correct
- Must not say that this review means APP 1.7 does not apply
- Must not sign the record

**The lawyer checks:**

- The reviewer is a person who was authorised to override the output, and they completed the record before the output was acted on
- The record does not claim a statutory safe harbour
- If the output is used in legal work, the reviewer is personally able to verify it, as the joint statement requires of solicitors

## Authorities

- [OAIC, APP guidelines chapter 1: human review does not of itself take a computer program outside APP 1.7 to 1.9](https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles/australian-privacy-principles-guidelines/chapter-1-app-1-open-and-transparent-management-of-personal-information)
- [Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice (6 December 2024): solicitors must personally verify AI output and must not treat the tool as a substitute for their own judgment](https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/LS4590_PSP_Statement_AI_LawSocietyVersion.pdf)
- [Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner, news item dated 6 December 2024, publishing the joint statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice](https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-use-artificial-intelligence-australian-legal-practice)

## Full text and drafting notes

The full text and the drafting notes are not part of this public page. Signed-in firm accounts can read them at https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/human-review-of-automated-output and through the signed-in MCP connector https://ailawframework.com/mcp/firm.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*