Definition
A statement of who may intervene in an automated process, on what signal, with what information, with authority over which state, on what timescale, and what happens when they disagree. It replaces “human in the loop” as the name of a control.
It matters because a role is not a control. Naming a human is compatible with that human being unable to alter anything, which is why oversight clauses resolve to an intervention specification and to meaningful control rather than to a named human alone, and why its absence shows up as rubber-stamp review.
What is an intervention specification? — the explainer, with a worked example
Tests that show it is in place
- Each oversight clause resolves to a specification answering all six questions.
- The specification names a state the human can alter, not only a decision they can approve.
- A disagreement path exists and has been exercised at least once.
Evidence to keep
- Artifact: An intervention specification per oversight point, with signal, information, authority, and clock.
- Behavior: A human intervention that altered system state, traced end to end.
- Metric: Share of oversight points with a complete specification, and interventions exercised per quarter.
References
- Meaningful control eval · Eval