You oversee a hiring-summary agent that must cite interview notes, avoid inventing skills, and flag low-confidence cases for recruiter review. A batch of summaries looks polished but lacks citations and confidence labels. Which output review discipline validates the agentic workflow results before sharing?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You want more than polished summaries before sharing them. Sampling against the notes checks citations, grounds skill claims, and catches uncertain cases that need recruiter review. That way, you can spot unsupported claims and missed escalations.
Full Explanation
The right review discipline samples summaries against source notes and checks all three safeguards before sharing: citations are accurate, claimed skills are grounded in interview evidence, and low-confidence cases are escalated for recruiter review. This directly addresses polished summaries that lack citations or confidence labels. Auditing sampled summaries for grounded skills and correct escalation is useful, but without checking citations it can miss missing or inaccurate references. Verifying citations and recruiter flags without checking skill claims can leave invented skills undetected. Verifying citations and grounding without checking escalation can let uncertain summaries reach recruiters without review. An exam caveat: sampling and source-note review alone are not enough; the discipline must cover citations, grounding, and escalation together. As a practical check, review a small sample: confirm each citation points to relevant notes, each claimed skill is supported by interview evidence, and each low-confidence case is flagged for recruiter review.