Sample article: placeholder content for review. It isn’t indexed by search engines.
Why AI should never be the one who decides
VeriViva prepares the evidence. A named person makes the call. Here's why we hold that line, and what it means in practice.
· 1 min read
See it on your own procedures
We’re working with a small number of teams in discovery.
Register interestWhat the AI does
VeriViva uses AI to do the slow parts well: drafting questions from your approved procedures for a coordinator to approve, asking only those approved questions, and suggesting how well each answer met the standard. That saves reviewers a lot of time.
What people do
The decision about whether someone has shown enough understanding belongs to a person who knows the work and can be asked about it later. The reviewer accepts or changes each AI suggestion and says why when they differ, and a named person is always responsible for the overall Viva decision.
If a decision affects someone's job, someone should be able to explain it.
The safeguards behind that
- Every Viva decision names the person who recorded it.
- Reviewers see the evidence and the source procedure side by side.
- Assessment is on content only: no facial, emotion, accent or honesty analysis.
- Our full position is on the Principles page.
Paul Cooper
Technical Architecture & AI Engineering Lead
Leads the technical architecture and AI engineering direction, turning the concept into a scalable, secure, production-ready platform.