Ultra PatternsAI interface patterns with receiptsULTRA project

Pattern 08 · Dashboard with AI insights · Interaction pattern

View

Review a colleague's work checkpoint

Seen in a case Built for a real case and observed with its users, or built for a case whose user test is still to come. No controlled comparison yet.

Practice view. What to build, the words on screen and how to measure it. Switch to Research for why it should work, the framework properties and the references.Research view. The research side is shown below the card: why it should work, the properties it targets and the references. Switch to Practice to hide it.

When a junior completes an AI-assisted task, it appears in the senior's queue as a review item. The item carries the original request, what the AI prepared and what the junior changed, with two actions: approve or request changes.

WhyReview is where errors are caught and where trust between people and the AI is built. Giving the reviewer the full trail keeps accountability with a person and makes the AI's share of the work visible.
WhenTeams with a junior and senior layer, and work where a second pair of eyes is normal practice.
Not whenSingle-person workflows. If reviewers approve without reading because there is no trail, build the trail before you build this checkpoint.

The user stays in chargeThe system shows how it worksCase: CNEXT Mail2Flow (company approval pending)

Done right, done wrong

Schematic screens, not real products. Click a screen to enlarge it.
Right. One review card: request, AI draft, the junior's note, approve or request changes.
Wrong. A final document with no trail; the reviewer redoes the work to be sure.

In practice

The July script asked the accountants to find a VAT workbook prepared by a junior, evaluate it and decide. It was the easiest task of the session: all seven read the summary, looked at what the junior had submitted, and approved or edited the draft. One reason it went well is that the screen held one proposed action, where the earlier task had shown two side by side (see One proposed action, one named button).

Two observations sharpen the pattern. One participant pressed Approve and got no confirmation, so she did not know whether the response had gone out; the checkpoint needs a closing line, sent or filed, under whose name. And one senior followed the AI draft although she said afterwards she would have written something different, because the text was already there. A review card should make editing as easy as approving, or the checkpoint becomes a rubber stamp.

Words on screen

"Alex prepared this with AI assistance. Changes by Alex are marked.""Approve""Request changes"

Obligations to keep in mind (AI Act, GDPR)

  • Human oversight with enough context to decide; show what the AI did and what the person changed. (O2, IUI 2026, Table 1)

Design considerations, not legal advice or a conformity assessment. What O1 to O5 mean.

Build it

Illustrative signatures, not a published library: the names below are suggestions to adapt to your stack. Thresholds are examples to tune on your own data.

States: pending, approved, changes-requested

Component: <ReviewCard request={e-mail} draft={draft} edits={diff} onApprove={fn} onChanges={fn} />

Measure it

Users feel in control · 8 minFaster, fewer errors · from logsPlan your testTen minutes per participant is the usual budget: pick the two or three cards that fit.

Same idea, other names

Try it

Open the demo

Research side · why it should work

Why it should work

The mechanism, notes and references for this card are written together with the science editor at KU Leuven Augment. Until then this side lists the properties the pattern targets and the contexts in which it was seen.

Properties targeted

Controllability · Reliance · Efficiency · Vocabulary bridge

Across contexts

ContextUsersStateResult
CNEXT Mail2Flow, Kairos prototypeaccountants, desktopSeen in a case7 of 7 completed the review task; one got no confirmation after Approve; one followed the AI draft although she would have written differently
Your contextBring your case

Editors

Practice: Abasin Abdul Khalil · Science: to be assigned by KU Leuven Augment · card v1.0 · 2026-09-08