.png)
Why Insight Doesn't Reduce Work
A demand forecast is generated by an inventory system. It is accurate. Buyers review it. They act on some lines and override others. Review volume holds steady. Nothing is removed from the workflow.
The forecast is improved. Accuracy rises. Review volume holds steady.
This is not a calibration issue. It is structural.
When a system generates insight — a recommendation, forecast, or confidence score — it creates a new decision point. Something must determine whether that insight is sufficient grounds for execution. In most operational environments, that determination lands with a human, not because the insight is weak, but because the system has no defined authority to act on its own output.
Insight carries information. It does not carry permission.
The causal chain is direct:
A system creates executable state — a purchase order, a stock movement, a replenishment trigger.
It attaches intelligence — confidence, recommendation, forecast.
The system still cannot decide whether the record may execute.
A human must exercise execution authority.
Accuracy improves the quality of the record. It does not change the location of authority. The labour relocates to the decision about whether the record is permitted to act. This failure is structural.
As long as execution authority is undefined, every executable record must be gated. Review volume cannot fall as a function of model accuracy, because accuracy does not answer the permission question. A system that is correct 94 percent of the time is not authorised by virtue of that statistic. Someone must still decide whether 94 percent is sufficient for this action, in this context, under current commercial conditions.
The mainstream assumption this contradicts is the compound bet that intelligence quality and labour removal scale together. If the system is right more often, people will review less often.
That assumption collapses because it confuses two separate questions:
Is the record correct?
Is the record permitted to execute?
Intelligence addresses the first. It cannot resolve the second. Permission is not a confidence score. It is a decision about whether the machine is allowed to act.
Where these questions are not structurally separated, investment in correctness cannot reduce gating labour.
The operational pattern is predictable. High-confidence records queue for review. Humans batch through them. Through put increases as automation improves, but the gating requirement remains constant. The system produces more plausible actions. It does not reduce the number of decisions about whether those actions may proceed.
The boundary is fixed. The system automates record formation. It does not automate permission to execute. Labour sits at that seam.
There is a real trade-off here. Resource spent improving model intelligence in an authority-absent system increases the throughput of gated records without reducing the gating requirement. These investments are not substitutes.
Intelligence, recommendations, and confidence signals cannot be used as arguments for labour removal in systems where execution authority is undefined. Without explicit authority, insight increases the precision and volume of records requiring review. It does not eliminate the need for that review.