Maya, an operations lead, gets a paused agentic workflow asking to publish an AI-drafted pricing page. One discount lacks source verification, policy requires a recorded decision with reasons, and the agent must be able to revise. Which approval response best handles the agentic interaction request?

The correct response enforces all three controls at once: it keeps the decision inside the paused run so provenance is preserved, it rejects rather than approves the publish because an unverified discount cannot go live, and it supplies a written reason that both satisfies the recording policy and gives the agent actionable feedback to verify and resubmit, thereby preserving revisability. The approval with deferred verification fails on the verification gate concept because publishing first and checking later exposes customers to incorrect pricing and cannot be cured by a follow-up note, even though documentation and workflow hygiene look correct. The rejection with verbal feedback fails on the auditability concept because policy explicitly demands a recorded decision with reasons, so an undocumented huddle or call leaves no trace for review and breaks compliance despite correctly blocking publication and allowing revision. The rejection followed by closing the run fails on the revisability concept because terminating the workflow prevents the agent from correcting the discount and resubmitting, which defeats the purpose of an agentic interaction request designed for iterative repair. An exam caveat is to distinguish sound operations practice from what the stem specifically requires, since approving with monitoring, giving quick verbal coaching, or closing risky runs can each be reasonable elsewhere but are wrong here when a stated gate, record, or revise requirement is missed. As a practical check before answering, confirm the chosen response blocks unverified publication, leaves a written reason in the run history, and leaves the run in a state where the agent can revise.