Short answer: An AI follow-up approval workflow should make the purpose, permitted context, human reviewer, edit record, stop condition, and final action visible before a draft is used. The process should show who made the decision, not merely that a draft was generated.
A useful draft is not an approved communication. It may still be wrong for the relationship, incomplete for the record, poorly timed, or outside the message purpose the team intended. The loan officer or another named reviewer remains responsible for deciding whether to edit, approve, pause, or discard it.
In this guide
Build the review around six decisions
| Decision |
What to write down |
What the reviewer should be able to see |
| Purpose |
The practical reason for the outreach, in plain language. |
Why this person is being contacted now; not a generic instruction to follow up. |
| Audience |
Who the draft is for and what relationship context matters. |
The intended recipient and any reason the ordinary path may not fit. |
| Permitted context |
The record information the team allows the reviewer to use for this purpose. |
The source of the relevant facts and any information that is missing or needs verification. |
| Reviewer |
The named person or role that can edit, approve, pause, or reject the draft. |
A clear human decision point rather than an implied sign-off. |
| Stop condition |
What causes the draft to pause and enter an exception path. |
The reason for the pause and who resolves it. |
| Record history |
Where the final action and material edits are documented. |
A reviewable sequence from proposed draft to final decision. |
Decide the stop conditions before the prompt
Write the pause rules before a team starts using AI assistance. Useful examples include missing relationship context, a conflicting recent interaction, a request that needs a factual check, a message that does not match its stated purpose, or a case that needs a person with different authority. The stop condition is not a failure. It is the part of the workflow that keeps an unclear record from becoming an unclear communication.
For mortgage work, a draft should not be treated as the final source for borrower-specific rates, program terms, loan eligibility, underwriting decisions, legal conclusions, or other facts that require appropriate verification. The reviewer should check the underlying approved source and follow the organization’s own communication and recordkeeping requirements.
Five-case review
Test an approval workflow with de-identified examples before relying on it for live activity. Each example should reach a documented human decision, even when the answer is to take no action.
- Ordinary relationship follow-up: Confirm that the purpose, recipient, context, reviewer, and final action are visible.
- Missing context: Remove information needed for a useful draft and confirm that the record pauses instead of encouraging a guess.
- Conflicting history: Use a record with a recent activity that changes the normal outreach approach. Confirm who resolves the conflict.
- Factual verification: Include a draft that refers to a detail the reviewer cannot confirm from the approved source. Confirm it is edited, held, or discarded.
- Relationship exception: Use an example where another person or team should decide the next action. Confirm the handoff and the reviewer history.
What to retain after review
Keep the record of the decision lightweight: the draft purpose, reviewer, substantial edit or reason for rejection, final action, and exception owner when one was needed. This is enough to make the process inspectable without turning every message into a separate project. Review repeated exceptions as a pattern. They may point to weak source data, an unclear message policy, or a workflow that needs a different human decision point.
Give the reviewer a source list, not just a draft
Before a reviewer reads the wording, identify the facts the draft was allowed to use. A short source list can include the last documented conversation, the approved reason for contact, and a current task. Show the date and record reference for each. A polished sentence does not establish that the underlying fact is current.
Use only an organization-approved AI environment and the minimum context permitted for the task. Anonymizing a name alone may not remove identifying details from a loan narrative. Confirm handling and retention requirements with the responsible internal owner before providing customer records to any external tool.
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides voluntary risk-management guidance. It is not a certification of this worksheet or a BNTouch feature specification. The review procedure here is a proposed operating method for your team to adapt.
Use an approval decision table
| Finding in the draft |
Review decision |
What must happen next |
| Purpose and documented facts match |
Review the final wording and channel requirements. |
Record the responsible person’s decision before use. |
| Wrong date or unsupported personal detail |
Hold for a source check. |
Correct the fact and review the revised version. |
| Borrower-specific rate, approval, or eligibility assertion |
Escalate to the appropriate authorized reviewer. |
Use an approved source and applicable review process. |
| Recent activity contradicts the planned follow-up |
Return to the record owner. |
Resolve the actual next step before rewriting. |
| Recipient, contact permission, or suppression status is uncertain |
Do not release the draft. |
Have the responsible owner resolve the uncertainty. |
Editing and approving are separate decisions even when one person performs both. A reviewer who changes the recipient or purpose should reassess the whole message, not simply approve the corrected sentence. Approval should apply to the final version, not to a draft that someone can alter afterward without another review.
A worked review example with a planted error
Fictional training case: The source note says that a referral partner asked for a conversation next Tuesday. An AI draft says the meeting is confirmed for Wednesday and adds that a shared client’s loan has been approved. Neither assertion appears in the permitted source note.
The reviewer holds the draft, checks the scheduling request, and removes the unsupported loan statement. The record owner confirms whether a meeting has actually been accepted. If only a request exists, the final communication must preserve that distinction. The reviewer also checks whether any customer-specific information belongs in a partner message at all.
Keep a short decision record: source reference, invented date, unsupported approval statement, correction owner, and final disposition. This is a training example of an error to catch, not an example of a message to send. A successful test is the reviewer’s documented refusal to use the unsupported draft.
Test reviewer judgment without sending test messages
- Prepare controlled cases. Use fictional records with no real recipient addresses. Include one ordinary draft and deliberate factual, timing, and audience errors.
- Write the expected decision. Decide in advance which cases require editing, a hold, or an authorized specialist. A vague instruction to use judgment is hard to evaluate.
- Review independently. Have the designated reviewer inspect the permitted context and draft without seeing the answer key.
- Compare the decisions. Discuss missed facts and disagreements. Correct the review instructions before expanding use.
- Retest after a material change. Changes to prompts, source context, or the review path can introduce different errors.
Track why people reject or materially edit drafts. Useful categories include invented fact, stale context, wrong audience, unsupported commitment, and inappropriate tone. Include the number reviewed and the case mix. A high approval percentage alone does not establish that the drafts are accurate or that the review process works.
For commercial email, the FTC’s CAN-SPAM guide addresses sender information, subject lines, required disclosures, and opt-out obligations. Passing an AI wording check does not replace those requirements or the other rules that apply to your organization and communication channel.
Reviewed BNTouch record-context source
Partner Tracker: Log Realtor Activity is a BNTouch tutorial published in 2024. It shows a partner-record sidebar with activity history and a MAIA chat entry point. Use it only as visual evidence that record context can matter to a review. It does not establish current MAIA availability, field behavior, permissions, or an approval process for another organization.
Use this in a product review
Bring the five de-identified examples and one written stop condition to a BNTouch demo. Ask the team to show how the reviewer can inspect record context, record an edit or decision, and identify the person responsible for an exception. Confirm the current configuration before using any workflow in production.
For product context, review MAIA and the AI mortgage CRM overview. Use this approval workflow to keep the operational question separate from broad capability descriptions.
This approval workflow supports the AI mortgage CRM guide by narrowing the question to human review, verified source information, and the decision history a team needs before a draft communication is used. Read the AI mortgage CRM guide for the related owner-page context.
Sources and further reading
