## TL;DR

Not every invoice needs a human, and not every invoice can skip one: route by risk. Auto-process high-confidence matched invoices under an amount cap; require human review for low confidence, large amounts, new vendors, and policy exceptions. Tune the thresholds so reviewers see the risky tail, not a random sample.

## Steps

1. Define auto-process criteria: confidence, match status, amount cap, known vendor.
   Expected: A clear straight-through rule.
2. Define mandatory review triggers: low confidence, large amount, new vendor, exceptions.
   Expected: A clear review rule.
3. Measure the review rate and the catch rate.
   Expected: Tuning data.
4. Adjust thresholds to keep reviewers on the risky tail.
   Expected: Efficient human effort.
5. Audit a sample of auto-processed invoices.
   Expected: Trust but verify.

## When to use

- Agent autonomy design
- Review staffing
- Risk-based AP controls

## When not to use

- Approval thresholds (financial authority)
- Fraud investigation
- Manual AP processes

## Compatibility

Agent-framework agnostic.

## Variant phrasings

### human in the loop invoice AI

### agent autonomy thresholds AP

### when to review agent invoices

## Root cause

Full autonomy is efficient but blind; full review is safe but pointless. Risk-based routing puts human judgment where it changes outcomes.

## Edge cases

- Thresholds interact with approval policy; align them
- New invoice types start in review until proven
- Reviewer fatigue is real; keep the queue meaningful

## Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_C85gK1kQ1Ec6cZ1dowSSng