An assistant drafts a customer reply, shows the records used and the exact recipient, then asks for approval of the final message. The sent state shows the message and time.
Chapter 13 / 14
Keep people oriented when automation acts
Show the system's scope, evidence, progress, and approval points during automated work.
Your goalMap one automated workflow from request to outcome. Mark the source boundary, planned tool action, approval point, visible progress, and correction route.
01 / Begin with the task
The principle
Automation can gather information, draft an answer, or act on other systems. The design should tell a person what work is proposed, which sources and tools are involved, and where their judgment changes the outcome.
- Action scope
- The set of data, tools, and side effects an automated process may use.
- Uncertainty
- A stated limit in the evidence or process that matters to the person's decision.
- Approval gate
- A point where a person reviews an exact proposed action before execution.
Begin with the person's goal and the authority the system needs. Before an automated step, preview its target, data access, and likely result. During longer work, show the current step and the tools or sources used. When output contains factual claims, connect the claims to inspectable evidence and indicate uncertainty that affects the next action.
Match the review point to the consequence. A draft can remain editable; an external message, permission change, payment, or publication merits a precise preview and an explicit approval step. After the action, show what actually happened and a route to correct or escalate it. Test the person's ability to predict the side effect, identify a source, interrupt the work, and explain the final state.
02 / Follow a method
Apply it in four steps
- State the person's goal and the system's proposed scope.
- Preview tools, data, target, and side effects before action.
- Expose progress, evidence, uncertainty, and a meaningful review point.
- Confirm the result and test correction, interruption, and escalation.
03 / Compare outcomes
Strong and weak execution
An assistant opens with a confident answer and sends it from a general chat instruction. The operator spends extra time reconstructing the sources, recipient, and resulting action.
Why the outcome changes
The strong flow makes evidence and authority visible before a side effect and confirms the result afterward. The weak flow combines drafting and execution into a single ambiguous moment. A test should ask the operator to predict the next action, inspect its support, and recover from an unsuitable draft.
04 / Use the method
Practice on a real screen
Map one automated workflow from request to outcome. Mark the source boundary, planned tool action, approval point, visible progress, and correction route.
Review your work
- The proposed scope and side effect are clear before action.
- Evidence and uncertainty are inspectable at the decision point.
- The person can approve, interrupt, correct, and understand the final state.
Keep your observation, interpretation, and proposed change together. Use the related patterns to inspect complete interaction states.