A program manager oversees an agentic workflow that requests approval to merge a pricing-page update. The diff adds an unapproved discount and lacks legal sign-off required by policy. How should the manager respond to this request for interaction from the agentic workflow?

The correct response upholds governance for human-in-the-loop approval by formally rejecting the noncompliant diff, stating a clear reason that supports auditability and future agent behavior, and requiring a revised proposal that removes the unapproved discount pending required legal sign-off, thereby preventing unauthorized pricing exposure while keeping the workflow moving through correction rather than silent blocking or post-hoc review. The alternative that retains the proposed discount while routing for formal legal sign-off properly respects procedural review but fails on substantive authorization because legal review cannot cure a discount that the business has not approved. The alternative that rejects with a documented reason and removes the discount to allow prompt deployment properly restores pricing accuracy and feedback transparency but fails on procedural compliance because policy still mandates legal sign-off even after the commercial term is corrected. The alternative that places the request on hold pending review while seeking justification in comments properly preserves context and deliberation but fails on decision hygiene by leaving a policy-violating merge in limbo instead of closing the loop with an explicit rejection and actionable remediation. Exam caveat: distinguish plausible stewardship behaviors from fully compliant ones by checking every stated gate rather than selecting a response that satisfies only the most salient gate. Practical check: inspect the diff, verify discount approval and legal sign-off in the system of record, then log rejection, rationale, and specific resubmission criteria.