Permitting wants AI to draft plan-review comments. Which architectural control best keeps those drafts from becoming official without oversight?

Permitting AI that drafts plan-review comments can speed staff work, but drafts must not become official municipal records without oversight. Inserting human-approval checkpoints in the workflow before AI suggestions become official permitting comments is the architectural control that keeps suggestions advisory until a reviewer accepts them. That human-in-the-loop gate protects residents, preserves accountability for the permit record, and prevents automated text from silently acquiring legal or operational weight. Publishing AI draft comments to applicant portal as provisional plan-review guidance pending staff review fails because it exposes unreviewed drafts to applicants as actionable guidance and lets them acquire official weight before any human approval. Holding AI draft comments in reviewer queue with automatic posting after overnight batch processing fails because time-based auto-posting finalizes drafts by default and allows them to become official without affirmative reviewer approval. Pre-inserting AI draft comments as official text with reviewer opt-out removal before permit issuance fails because it makes AI text official by default and relies on reviewers catching and removing it, rather than requiring approval before officialization. Exam caveat: For decision-adjacent municipal AI, human-approval checkpoints before officialization are the expected architectural control; publishing provisional guidance, auto-posting after batch processing, or pre-inserting as official text with opt-out are the common distractors. Operational check: Configure the permitting workflow so AI comments remain draft until an authorized reviewer approves, retain audit trails of AI vs human authorship, and keep reviewer accounts mandatory for closing or finalizing permits.