# Adding a human next to the AI is not oversight.
Canonical: https://social-archive.org/tgroenwals/78EY57S66R
Original URL: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexander-miguel-meyer_adding-a-human-next-to-the-ai-is-not-oversight-share-7484917402934272000-Cdcd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAUj9ABA6XwLJ3RcHE4FACjTijtAT4klvY
Author: Alex Miguel Meyer
Platform: linkedin
Share mode: full
## Content
Adding a human next to the AI is not oversight. Regulators do not care that your AI is fast. They care who signed off. EU AI Act Article 14. NIST AI Risk Framework. Colorado AI Act. Texas TRAIGA. All four require human oversight with three elements. Context. Authority. Rationale. Most governance frameworks skip all three. They add a checkbox. Not a checkpoint. Here is how to deploy Human-in-the-Loop across the 5 governance layers. → Ethics: Named reviewer with real veto authority. → Risk Management: Tiered checkpoints. High-risk pauses. Low-risk runs. → Accountability: One human signs off. One name in the log. → Transparency: Cannot explain it? Do not deploy it. → Compliance: Signed human approval before every deployment and update The real question is not "do you have a human in the loop?" It is "does that human have the authority to say no?" If the answer is no, you do not have oversight. You have theater. What is one governance decision at your company that runs without a real human check? ⬇️ Let me know in the comments → Join AI-Empowered Leaders: My weekly newsletter with actionable AI insights from my work as AI advisor, trainer & coach. Sign up here 👇 <https://lnkd.in/eUmy2Bdp> ♻️ Repost to help your network build governance that actually works
## Media
1. image: https://social-archiver-api.social-archive.org/media/archives/tgroenwals/UJaDAt8SsU/media/0.jpg