Understand AI usage and human review boundaries

Owl Intel can summarize authorized communication evidence, surface signals, answer focused questions, and support coaching. A responsible person checks the evidence and decides what to do.

Confirm authorization

Use evidence available to your signed-in role and assignments. If you cannot access a source needed for the task, ask the appropriate manager to review it. Do not move restricted evidence into another tool to bypass access.

Inspect the source and context

Open citations and original interactions. Check candidate identity, the relevant job, timing, direction, and unresolved facts. A preview, confidence score, summary, sentiment value, or topic cannot establish a fact that its source does not support.

Correct or escalate uncertainty

Use Correct insight for a supported candidate-intent correction on authorized candidate-linked communication evidence. For other unresolved facts, follow the agency's review process. Pause work that needs legal, privacy, or employment review until the responsible person has the necessary evidence.

Make and record the decision

The authorized person applies agency policy and records the actual recruiting or operational action. A generated next action does not automatically send a message or advance an application. Use the appropriate workflow and confirm that any save succeeded.

Do not use sentiment, engagement, intent, topics, confidence, scorecards, or generated next actions as the sole basis for selecting, rejecting, ranking, disciplining, compensating, or terminating a person.

Decide what requires verification

Identify the fact that could change the next action. A candidate's name, intended job, availability, or condition attached to a reply may need direct confirmation. The amount of review should reflect the consequence of being wrong. A routine summary still needs checking when someone will use it to contact a candidate or advance an application.

Open the source that supports the statement. If the source is missing, inaccessible, or incomplete, treat the statement as unconfirmed. A confident answer or familiar-looking label does not remove that gap. Ask the authorized person responsible for the record to resolve it.

Review the meaning, not just matching words

Compare the full statement with its context. A candidate can mention a date without agreeing to it, or discuss a credential without establishing that it is current. Conditions and unanswered questions are part of the evidence. Preserve them when summarizing the conversation for another recruiter.

For a fictional example, Maya Rao's interest in a night-shift role does not establish acceptance of the proposed start date. The reviewer should identify the unanswered date question and assign the follow-up. The later reply, once received and checked, can support the next decision.

Use corrections within their actual scope

Correct insight updates a reviewed candidate-intent value on authorized candidate-linked communication evidence. It does not provide a general field editor for every generated result or replace the original source. Use the appropriate candidate, job, document, or agency review process for other types of error.

After making a correction, inspect the saved result. Keep the supporting evidence available to the authorized team so the next person can understand what changed. If the correction does not resolve the underlying recruiting question, leave that question assigned instead of treating the technical update as completed follow-up.

Keep responsibility clear at the handoff

Before sending a message or changing shared recruiting state, identify who is authorized to make the decision. That person should know what was checked, what remains uncertain, and which actual event justifies the action. Record the event through the normal workflow and confirm that the save succeeded.

Managers should also review how evidence is used in coaching and reporting. Communication volume, sentiment, confidence, and engagement describe limited aspects of available records. They should not become the sole basis for employment decisions. Use the coaching, conversation-review, and matching guides for the specific controls involved, and ask the responsible reviewer to handle legal, privacy, or selection questions that the product evidence cannot resolve.