Define the responsibility map
For one recurring job, identify who:
- selects the authoritative sources;
- defines the allowed task and output;
- examines material claims independently;
- decides whether a correction is sufficient;
- keeps the final artifact and its history understandable.
The map can be small. Its purpose is to prevent “the AI did it” from replacing a human account of source selection and final judgment.
Map the decision to run history
The relevant component is “A run history you can inspect.” It makes the source selection, first artifact, finding, correction, and responsible choice visible in sequence.
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework treats roles and responsibilities as part of AI risk governance. W3C PROV-O includes agents and their relationships to activities and entities. CommonMark can hold a readable responsibility table beside the artifacts.
The record should name a role or person where accountability matters. It should never expose private credentials, hidden deliberation, or unrelated personal information.
Scale clarity before headcount
This method fits an individual practitioner as well as a small team. One person can occupy every role, provided the distinctions remain visible during review and correction.
Responsibility mapping does not prescribe where every human decision belongs inside a larger workflow. It answers who supplies, examines, decides, and preserves the work around one job.
Name who stands behind the correction
The synthetic correction identifies distinct responsibility for source selection, review, and the choice of the current brief.
Connect roles to the core set
Owned AI Workbench explains the parent operating pattern. What an AI Workbench Demonstration Can Prove keeps claims inside the evidence boundary. Separate Workbench Rules From Job Content clarifies which instructions each responsible person maintains.