jperezduerto.info
Security in depth · Unit 27 · Lesson 11 of 11
Approval needs a reviewable action
Compare an approved draft with the exact action that is about to happen.
Helpful before thisAI on offense
After this lesson you can
- Identify a material change that invalidates approval of a previously reviewed action.
One idea. One situation. One reasoned decision.
How it works
Human review works only when the reviewer can understand the proposed effect and has authority to approve it. Show recipients, relevant data, changes, and uncertainty in a concrete form. Avoid broad approval that silently covers later changed actions. For high-volume workflows, design escalation and limits so review remains meaningful rather than becoming a reflexive click.
The reviewer approved a specific version
A fictional assistant prepares a maintenance notice. The workflow requires approval of recipients, message content, and attachments before sending.
| Record | State |
|---|---|
| H1 | Reviewer approves version 3 for the maintenance group, without an attachment |
| H2 | Version 4 adds an attachment and an external recipient |
| H3 | The send proposal refers to version 4 but reuses version 3’s approval |
Worked decision: do not execute H3 under that approval. The reviewer assessed a different disclosure and audience. A generic “approved” flag hides the change that matters.
Show the actual recipients, relevant content, attachment identity, and material differences in the next review. The reviewer must have authority for that disclosure and enough context to assess it. Bind the resulting approval to the reviewed action version, then verify that the proposed effect still matches at execution time.
If the action changes again, apply the workflow’s change policy rather than silently carrying approval forward. This is also a usability requirement: flooding a person with vague confirmations encourages automatic clicks. A focused preview of the concrete effect makes the decision easier to understand and creates a useful record of what was authorized.
The key distinction: Review requires a stable, understandable decision object.
Check yourself
No timer. No penalties. Read the explanation and try again whenever you like.
This lesson’s questions have changed. Your reading progress is saved; review the updated questions.
-
What should happen to the send proposal in H3?
Show the answer
Correct answer: Require review of version 4’s concrete effect and bind any approval to that version. The recipient and attachment changes are material under the stated workflow. The final action must match what an authorized reviewer actually approves.
Try it
- WriteWrite the review screen fields needed for H1-H3 and the condition that should prevent sending. Include how the system can bind approval to the reviewed version.