Teams sometimes use one AI system to review or govern the output of another. That can help surface issues, but the reviewer is also fallible. A confident assessment is not, by itself, evidence that an outcome is correct or fair.
Use explicit rules where criteria are clear
When a requirement is stable and can be stated precisely, an explicit rule can make the expected behavior easier to inspect and test. Rules still need careful design, maintenance, and review as the surrounding context changes.
Use AI assistance with limits
An AI system may help summarize material or flag cases for a person to examine. It can also miss context or produce an incorrect assessment. Define what the tool can influence, how disagreements are handled, and who remains accountable for consequential decisions.
No single approach works for every workflow. Combine methods based on the decision, the available evidence, the impact of error, and the people affected. Test the complete process rather than relying on a claim that one layer is deterministic or infallible.