Human-in-the-loop is a control architecture, not a disclaimer
How professional review, override, calibration and audit should be engineered into clinical intake assistance.
Human oversight only improves safety when the interface makes uncertainty, provenance, corrections and escalation actionable. A clinician merely present in the workflow is not enough.
Design implication
CelestyxAI should show structured output, applied policy context and reasons for escalation in a way that supports rapid confirmation or correction — without presenting probabilistic text as an authoritative clinical conclusion.
Measure the interaction
Override rate, correction type, time-to-review, disagreement, missed information and automation-bias indicators should be captured as validation outcomes.
Governance implication
The professional role, escalation responsibility and permitted system actions should be explicit in the intended-use statement and audit trail.
This brief is a CelestyxAI synthesis of the cited external evidence and accumulated project design decisions. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication and does not establish clinical efficacy.