- Published
- Updated
Two approvals on an automated output do not demonstrate two independent assessments. If the second person reads only the first reviewer’s conclusion, both may share the same incorrect assumption. Define which critical claim each role examines and the evidence it uses.
Scope of the decision
Independence does not mean recreating the entire task twice. A different control purpose and sufficient source access may be appropriate for the risk. One review can address completeness while another checks support for important conclusions. Role separation remains merely formal without relevant competence and actual examination of evidence.
Worked review
For example, an automated report states that all critical actions are complete. The first reviewer checks language and list completeness. The second goes to the open-action record, challenges the completion claim and finds an exception. Reading the same summary twice might not reveal that difference.
Practical checks
- Define separate review questions and expected evidence for both roles.
- Confirm that the second reviewer can examine sources independently of the first conclusion.
- Explain how disagreements reach authorised decisions and correction.
Acceptance and limits
Acceptance requires adequate evidence supporting the critical claims selected for review. Two signatures cannot compensate for missing sources or insufficient competence. If high-risk uncertainty remains, use appropriate escalation and further assessment instead of merely achieving a numerical approval target.
Frequently asked questions
- Are two people always necessary?
- There is no universal rule for every use. Risk and authorised assessment determine the suitable scope.
- Does second approval absorb the first reviewer’s error?
- Clarify each role’s responsibility; the aim is appropriate assurance, not duplication of a shared mistake.