Tutorial / PULSE
Design an approval gate for AI-generated content
Define exactly what a reviewer approves, how a declined draft stops, and how duplicate runs are handled.
Source review: . Prepared with AI assistance; references checked against official documentation. Editorial method and limits.
Download a blank evaluation worksheet (CSV). The example row is fictional and has not been run.
Download a worked claim-review example — fictional brief, flawed draft, evidence decisions and corrected copy.
Put the gate before the external action
Map the workflow as input, draft, review, then external action. The gate belongs before publishing or messaging. A notification that something already happened is an audit event, not an approval.
Zapier documents a Human in the Loop action for pausing runs pending review. Its guide lists plan and reviewer requirements. Confirm those before designing a process around the feature.
Bind approval to a revision
Use a brief ID, draft revision, intended destination and content preview. Store the reviewer decision with that revision. A general “looks good” message without the artifact reference is ambiguous.
Proposed example record: BRIEF-014, revision 3, destination draft queue, reviewer pending. If revision 4 changes a claim, request review again rather than carrying the previous approval forward.
Try the failure paths
Prepare a declined draft, a record missing its source and a repeated input ID. Observe whether downstream actions stay stopped and whether the owner receives enough information to investigate. Use a private draft destination for this trial.
Choose the duplicate policy before running the workflow: reject the duplicate, update the draft, or create an explicitly linked revision. Do not assume a connector enforces your business rule automatically.
Make recovery understandable
Document who can retry a run and what should be checked first. Look for a partial external action before retrying, because a failed response does not always mean nothing happened.
A useful completion record includes the approved revision and the resulting artifact URL. This editorial design is a starting point for a real integration trial; PULSE has not connected or tested your apps.
Official references
References support documented product capabilities. Procedures, examples and acceptance criteria above are editorial proposals, not vendor promises or hands-on benchmarks.