How to Define When an AI-Assisted Laboratory Draft Needs Rechecking

Name the operational output, its source records and the task it supports. A draft summary, training aid and controlled laboratory record have different approval needs. This guide concerns workflow governance, not diagnosis, treatment or clinical advice.

Identify changes that make a previous review insufficient: corrected source data, revised procedures, changed prompts, new configuration or a different intended audience. Avoid assigning a universal expiry period without considering the workflow and local quality requirements.

Record the creation time, source version, tool or model identifier where available, configuration reference and reviewer decision. A document labelled reviewed is difficult to assess if nobody can determine which inputs the review covered.

When a trigger occurs, use the approved process to distinguish held or superseded drafts from current approved records. Preserve the original evidence and avoid silently replacing an earlier version. Assign a named person to assess downstream impact.

Determine whether the change affects one field, the entire output or other linked work. A qualified reviewer must decide the necessary checks and approval. Regenerating fluent text is not evidence that the underlying issue was resolved.

Use authorised synthetic data to walk through a corrected source value and a procedure revision. Confirm that staff can find the held output, identify the trigger and document the recheck. Laboratory, quality, security and privacy professionals retain oversight within their responsibilities.

Does every draft need the same expiry date? No. Can AI approve its own recheck? No. Should the earlier version disappear? Preserve traceability through the approved retention process.