Useful and low consequence
Document the pattern and make the review expectation visible.
No-blame workflow review / AI use
Keep the useful shortcuts. Fix the fragile ones.
For teams already using AI in real work, but without a trustworthy view of where it is used, what it touches, or how outputs get reviewed.
01
Keep / fix / stop
Not every AI workflow deserves the same reaction.
The useful decision is practical triage: what can continue, what needs guardrails, and what should stop now.
Useful but brittle
Redesign the data flow, handoff, prompt, or human review checkpoint.
Consequential without control
Remove or replace uses whose downside cannot be managed operationally.
02
Reviewable outputs
A cleanup plan the team can actually use.
This is workflow consulting, not legal or regulatory counsel.
Usage map
Tools, people, inputs, outputs, and hidden dependencies.
Risk triage
Consequences ranked by the reality of the workflow.
Safer routes
Practical redesign options for the workflows worth keeping.
30-day cleanup
Named changes, owners, and review points.
03
Fit
Best when unofficial use already has business consequences.
If nobody is using AI yet, there is nothing live to review.
Useful signals
- Real customer or operating work touches AI
- Leadership visibility is incomplete
- The team wants guardrails, not a crackdown
Wrong expectation
- Legal advice disguised as workflow review
- Nobody is actually using AI yet
- Hype without cleanup or process discipline
Shared screened application
Tell me where AI has quietly become part of the work.
The application checks for a live workflow, decision access, and enough evidence to make the review useful.
Review the applicationSee the broader diagnostic