An automation on the city permits portal ART uses an AI agent to email the whole train the PI calendar. The message goes out unreviewed and lists last PI's dates. What should the RTE insist on?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Auto-send without a glance is like dropping every letter in the mailbox without checking the address. One bad PI calendar to the whole permits train creates chaos. Draft with the bot; hit send after a human checks the dates.
Full Explanation
AI-generated ART communications need human review before send. On the city permits portal ART, when an automation emails the whole train the PI calendar unreviewed and lists last PI’s dates, the RTE should insist on human review of outbound AI messages. Skipping review whenever the agent has sent mail before because faster send is “more Lean” confuses speed with quality. Treating wrong dates as acceptable if the ART Kanban still shows the previous PI normalizes calendar defects. Allowing only Business Owners to read AI mail and telling teams to ignore calendar messages fragments communication instead of fixing it. Exam caveat: automation can still help draft calendars; the control is a human checkpoint, not a ban on all mail aids. Operational check: disable unattended send, add a review step for calendar messages, correct the permits ART dates, and confirm teams receive the fixed schedule. Keep the civic mission visible when applying the technique so resident-facing outcomes stay the measure of success. In municipal ART practice, capture the rationale in facilitation notes so future coaches inherit the same standard. Re-validate after the next PI cadence event that the same control still fits current civic constraints.