Every decision that changes what a person receives should carry a caseworker's name. A casework approver authority matrix makes sure it does: it lists each action an AI agent prepares, from eligibility assessments to payments and closures, and names who approves it, their limit, and when a second person must agree.
Why does casework need tight approval rules?
Casework decisions land on individuals, often at difficult moments: a benefit claim, a housing application, a grant from a charity, a complaint to a regulator. Many casework teams sit in public bodies, which face additional duties of transparency and fairness, and under the EU AI Act some public uses of AI are classed as high-risk. Under the GDPR, decisions based solely on automated processing that have legal or similarly significant effects are restricted by Article 22.
The practical consequence is simple. An agent can read the case file at depth 1, draft an eligibility assessment and a decision letter at depth 2, and in some teams make routine, reversible updates at depth 3, such as booking an appointment. It should not decide entitlement. The matrix makes sure every decision with an effect on the person has a named agent approver who reviewed it.
How do you fill it in?
Start from the outcomes a case can have, not the tasks. For each outcome:
- Write the action that produces it.
- Set the agent's depth for that action.
- Name the approver role and the limit of their authority, in value or case type.
- Mark when a second approver is required, for example above a value or where the decision is adverse.
- State the reason standard: what the decision letter must explain.
- Record the certificate the approver must hold, if approval rights depend on certification.
The template
| Case action | Agent depth | Approver | Limit | Second approver when | Reason standard | Certificate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Request missing evidence | ||||||
| Assess eligibility | ||||||
| Award or refuse | ||||||
| Make a payment | ||||||
| Recover an overpayment | ||||||
| Share data with another agency | ||||||
| Close a case | ||||||
| Reconsider a decision |
A worked example
A hypothetical local authority's housing support team: ten caseworkers, three senior caseworkers and a team manager. Values are illustrative.
| Case action | Agent depth | Approver | Limit | Second approver when | Reason standard | Certificate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Request evidence | 2 | Caseworker | All | None | Lists each missing item | Foundations |
| Assess eligibility | 2 | Caseworker | Standard cases | Applicant disputes facts | Each criterion met or not, with evidence | Operator |
| Award | 2 | Caseworker | Up to 1,000 | Above 1,000, senior | Criteria and amount | Operator |
| Refuse | 2 | Senior caseworker | All | Always, a second senior | Specific criterion not met, and how to ask for review | Operator |
| Payment | 4, held | Senior caseworker | Up to 5,000 | Above 5,000, team manager | Award reference | Operator |
| Recover overpayment | 2 | Team manager | All | Always, finance | Cause and calculation | Operator |
| Share data | 2 | Team manager | Named partner agencies | Any new agency, data protection lead | Lawful basis stated | Operator |
| Close case | 3 | Caseworker | No open actions | None | Closure reason | Foundations |
| Reconsider | 1 | Senior caseworker not involved before | All | Always, team manager | Fresh look at the evidence | Operator |
Refusals carry two seniors because they are adverse and often challenged. The agent's draft must name the specific criterion not met and the evidence it relied on. A refusal letter that says "you do not meet the criteria" without saying which one will not survive review.
Reconsideration sits at depth 1: the agent may read the case but not draft the new decision, so the reviewing senior forms their own view rather than editing the original draft. The reviewer must be someone who was not involved before.
Case closure at depth 3 is safe only because it requires no open actions and is reversible. If the agent closes a case with an outstanding evidence request, the caseworker sees it in the next day's sample and reopens it.
The limits for this team are set in the approver rule for the casework team, and cover in the reviewer rota for the casework team. Teams making financial decisions about individuals, such as those in the approver authority matrix for the credit team, face similar demands for specific reasons. Caseworkers can evidence their review skill through Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator certificate, which anyone can check at source. The broader skills map is AI agent skills by role.
Questions people ask
Can an agent decide a simple, clear-cut case?
It can prepare the decision, but a person should approve any award or refusal. Even a clear case has an effect on someone, and public bodies need a person who can explain it.
Who approves when the usual caseworker is away?
Another caseworker with the same certificate and limit, named on the rota. Cases should not wait on one person's leave.
What should a decision letter always include?
The decision, the specific reasons tied to evidence, and how to ask for a review. If the agent drafts a letter without all three, the approver sends it back.