Government AI Oversight Practitioners - Intervention Points

Five questions worth sitting with before Monday. These come directly from GIAG Stream Two research conversations with government technology practitioners responsible for AI oversight. One. Can you identify the specific points in your deployed AI workflows where a human decision is required before the system continues execution? Two. Has the operating scope of your current AI deployments changed since initial authorization? If so, has that change been formally reviewed? Three. When your reviewers evaluate AI system outputs, do they have visibility into the process steps that produced them, or are they working from results only? Four. Has your agency defined what a reviewer does when uncertain about an AI-generated output? A documented protocol with binding authority, not a general permission to escalate. Five. How does your governance framework distinguish between oversight of assistive AI and oversight of agentic AI? Or does it apply a single oversight model to both? These questions locate where oversight architecture is thinner than governance documentation suggests. On June 5, I am presenting on the intervention point problem at a practitioner working group session. The research driving the my Newsletter Issue #7 will anchor that session. If you are working on AI oversight design in a federal, state, or local agency, I would like to hear from you before then.