The challenge
Reviewers repeatedly check whether requests include the required fields and attachments, then ask for missing details by email. Inconsistent checks can create additional resubmissions.
Start with one defined request type, such as office equipment or internal work requests. Approval ownership and exception handling should already be clear.
Information to prepare
Define the source owners, document dates, and permitted readers before choosing the retrieval scope.
| Input | What to check |
|---|---|
| Request form | Review the purpose, quantity, requested date, and attachments |
| Intake rules | Check required fields and supporting documents |
| Approval routes | Identify the appropriate reviewer |
| Previous clarification reasons | Capture recurring omissions |
The workflow
Adapt the following responsibilities to the team's existing workflow.
| Step | AI and system role | Human role |
|---|---|---|
| Receive the request | Organize the submission into consistent fields | Choose the request type in scope |
| Check completeness | Compare required fields and attachments | Review unreadable documents and exceptions |
| Draft a clarification | Explain missing details and why they are required | Decide whether clarification is appropriate |
| Hand off for a decision | Record findings and the applicable rule | Approve or reject spending and exceptions |
An example output
The following example was written around fictional source material. It is not customer data or output from a deployed system.
| Field | Example content | Source or status |
|---|---|---|
| Request | Purchase a work monitor | Sample submission |
| Provided | Purpose and quantity | Sample submission |
| Missing | Required delivery date and quotation | Sample intake rule |
| Clarification draft | Please add the requested delivery date and attach the quotation. | Draft based on the missing required fields |
Human review and operating conditions
Use ordinary form validation for deterministic checks such as required dates and numeric fields. This design prepares review information; it does not independently approve requests or execute payments.
Evaluate a narrow pilot
A possible pilot uses one request type with complete submissions, missing information, and exceptions. Compare the assisted checklist with the existing review to identify omissions and unnecessary corrections.
Assess the effort required from both the requester and reviewer. Correct handling of exceptions is a condition for expanding the scope.
| Measure | What to record |
|---|---|
| Time to complete review | Separate waiting time from active work |
| Resubmissions | Missed omissions, unnecessary clarifications, and repeat submissions |
| Traceability | Whether the reviewer and applicable rule can be identified |
Explore the next step with Atlas Support
Describe the form fields, review steps, and common reasons for resubmission. We can help identify the first request type and the decisions that remain with people.
Depending on the agreed scope, we can map the workflow, review data and access, build a prototype, and define evaluation criteria. The evidence then informs the operating scope and remaining issues.
Discuss this workflow
Tell us about one recurring task and the types of documents your team uses. We can help define the scope and the evidence needed for a first evaluation.