PA004
Define risk-based thresholds that trigger mandatory human confirmation, satisfying human oversight obligations while preserving broad automation efficiency.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Process contradiction PA004 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Broader Task Automation vs. Preserved Human Judgment
Business Context. Automating a larger share of process tasks improves efficiency, but removing too much human involvement can eliminate the judgment needed to catch unusual situations that automation was not designed to recognize.
Process TRIZ Resolution. Rather than automating a task fully or not at all, organizations should automate the execution of a task while requiring human confirmation for decisions above a defined risk or value threshold.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 35 (Parameter Changes) adjusts the level of automation based on the risk or value of the specific case.
Principle 13 (The Other Way Round) has automation propose a decision for human approval rather than executing autonomously.
Principle 3 (Local Quality) applies different automation levels to different case categories based on risk.
Expected Outcome
Broad efficiency gains
Preserved human judgment on critical cases
Reduced automation-related errors
Balanced speed and oversight
Decision Indicators
Automated errors are discovered only after significant downstream impact.
No threshold exists for routing high-value cases to human review.
Staff have lost the skills needed to catch automation errors.
Fully automated decisions cannot be explained after the fact.
Customers report decisions that no human ever reviewed.
If several of these indicators are present, the contradiction is likely active and the Process TRIZ resolution above should be evaluated.