Skip to main content

Human-in-the-loop automation with MeshQu

How can we automate checks in a review process while people keep authority over the decision?

Human-in-the-loop automation means automating the checks in a review process while people keep authority over the decisions that matter. With MeshQu you start with one decision in the process you already have and make what must be true, the evidence and who decides explicit. Then you automate checks one at a time. Each assessment is recorded against the same policy version, so automating a check does not change what the decision was judged against.

In more detail

Some checks need a person and some don’t. A person checks: someone confirms a document or a fact and records what they found. A rule checks: a system checks the same thing the same way, every time. An agent helps: it gathers and summarises the evidence for a person or a rule. A person decides: when a rule can’t settle it, a reviewer makes the call and records why. A review can move from manual to assisted, connected and agentic, where agents handle routine cases within the authority they are granted and exceptions and reserved outcomes go to people. At every stage what must be true, the evidence requirements and the authority stay the same, and so does the record. Each recorded assessment has a signed Decision Receipt, and reviews and approvals are linked records alongside it. An assessment recorded from a manual form produces the same kind of signed receipt as one recorded through the API.

Limits

  • MeshQu returns a verdict; your systems control the action and route cases to people.

  • Who acted at each step is recorded as your systems supply it. The actor identifier is not authenticated by MeshQu.

  • A recorded review shows who decided and why. It is not proof that the decision was correct.

  • The supplier onboarding review on the page is illustrative, not a customer deployment.

  • MeshQu is currently available for research, evaluation and design-partner deployments. Production availability and support commitments are agreed per engagement.

Where it applies

  • Start with one decision in an existing review process and make what must be true, the evidence and who decides explicit.

  • Move a repeatable check from a person to a rule or an agent without changing what the case is judged against.

  • Keep reviewer judgement, overrides and approvals as linked records beside each assessment.

Sources

Related answers

Next step

Map a decision

Read more on meshqu.com/human-in-the-loop-automation

Updated Machine-readableAll reviewed answers