Judge the consequence, not the convenience
The useful question is not “can it do this?” It is “what happens if it is wrong, and can we undo it?” A reminder on an internal task and a payment to a new recipient do not belong in the same risk category.
Make approvals specific
Fictional example: software prepares a refund recommendation. The reviewer should see the relevant purchase, the applicable policy, the amount, the destination, and the proposed effect before approving it. A vague “approve all” button hides the decision rather than supports it.
Keep appropriate human review for consequential payment decisions, legal positions, hiring decisions, account access changes, sensitive data changes, safety decisions, and new public or customer commitments. The exact boundary depends on the business, governing requirements, and approved process.
Do not turn the reviewer into a rubber stamp
Give the person time, source information, and a clear way to reject, correct, or pause. Name the person or role with authority. Record what was approved and what actually happened. If the proposal changes materially, the old approval should not silently cover the new action.
Automate the preparation instead
Gather permitted records, check required fields, flag exceptions, draft a response, or remind the right person. That can remove work without pretending responsibility belongs to the software.
This is a practical boundary-setting guide, not legal or security certification. A human checkpoint also needs testing; adding an approval button alone does not make a risky process safe.