Product familyP4 · Human controlException deskEvidence beside decision
Human review & approval
Automate Routine Enrichment and Review the Exceptions
Product-data automation should reduce repetitive work without forcing a business to accept every AI result automatically.
ENRIVAQ is designed around a human-in-the-loop workflow for cases where technical information is uncertain, conflicting or important enough to require a decision.
The system handles routine enrichment. People focus on the records where judgment adds value.
Product context
AC820825OEM / MPN AC820825KVERNELANDReference product
Field under reviewWeightConflicting candidates
Evidence beside field
Routing state
Workflow illustration only — not a live per-value reviewer interface.
Routine workContinue automatically
Exception surfacedDifficult field becomes visible
Evidence beside fieldCompare source context
Exception routingContinue · Hold · Reject evidence
Controlled outputOnly resolved evidence continues
02 · Why humans remain
Exception funnel
Some product decisions are not safe to hide behind automation
Technical catalogs contain edge cases: multiple possible product matches, source conflicts, incomplete documentation and attributes whose meaning depends on category context.
Normal records can move through the agreed workflow without forcing a person to research every SKU from scratch.
- Product identity establishedContinue
- Structured values fit schemaContinue
- No unresolved conflictContinue
Route
The review lane concentrates the cases that need context rather than hiding them in an automatic response.
- Multiple possible matchesReview
- Conflicting source valuesReview
- Incomplete documentationReview
- Category-dependent meaningReview
Human review provides a controlled path for exceptions without requiring people to research every normal product from scratch.
03 · Confidence thresholds
Qualitative routing gate
Use automation and review as different workflow states
Where confidence or rule-based thresholds are implemented, they can help route records based on risk. Confidence should be treated as a prioritization signal rather than a factual guarantee.
Enriched recordRouting signal evaluatedActual rules must come from the implemented product.
Risk-aware routingNo universal cutoff
Continue without creating unnecessary review work.
Send the record to the exception desk with evidence beside the field.
Do not silently treat the candidate value as approved product data.
Routing states: supported evidence continues · ambiguous or conflicting evidence is held · invalid or irrelevant evidence is rejected
04 · Evidence view
Exception evidence
Keep product context and source evidence together
The current workflow preserves the product, field, candidate values and source context needed to understand why a record was held. The composition below illustrates the routing state; it is not presented as a live per-value reviewer interface.
Product context
Fan impellerAC820825AC820825KVERNELAND
- Field
- Weight
- Candidate
- 1.74 kg
- Reason
- Source conflict
- Current status
- Review
Supporting evidence
Public AC820825 product record · weight candidate
Public AC820825 product record · conflicting weight candidate
Decision routing example
This diagram shows routing logic, not a live per-value reviewer interface.
05 · Sources
Evidence beside field
Put evidence beside the field being reviewed
Source context is especially useful when two values disagree or a technical field looks unusual. The reviewer should compare the available information rather than rely on the apparent confidence of generated prose.
Compare context
Public AC820825 product record · weight candidate
Public AC820825 product record · conflicting weight candidate
The workflow keeps source context visible so conflicting evidence can be held without entering the accepted product record.
06 · Continue / Hold / Reject
Routing outcomes
Make the exception state explicit
The implemented workflow distinguishes values that can continue, values that must remain unresolved, and evidence that should be rejected. A full per-value reviewer editing interface is not claimed here.
Use supported evidence
Clear, provenance-backed values can continue through the normal product-data workflow.
Keep the field unresolved
Conflicting or ambiguous candidates remain separated until the evidence is resolved.
Do not accept invalid evidence
Wrong-product, irrelevant or otherwise invalid evidence must not become part of the product record.
07 · Audit
Keep a history only to the level the product actually supports
For enterprise catalog teams, it can be useful to understand which fields were reviewed and what decision was made.
Current product evidence retains source/value lineage and processing context. A full per-value reviewer action history is not presented as a current interface capability.
Source/value lineageRETAINED
Source contextRETAINED
Processing evidence contextRETAINED
Per-value reviewer action historyNOT CLAIMED AS CURRENT UI
Manual exception handlingOPERATIONAL WORKFLOW
08 · Controlled next step
See how difficult records are separated from routine work
Bring a product with conflicting or uncertain data and use it to walk through the review process.