Caseworkers approve what the agent drafts; senior caseworkers approve decisions that change what a person receives. No agent action that grants, reduces or stops support is released without a named caseworker, and stopping support needs a second. Each approval right depends on a certificate that is current on the day, and lapses with it.
What is a casework approver rule, and who owns it?
Casework teams in public services, charities and housing make decisions about people: eligibility, entitlements, support plans, case closures. Agents help with the heavy lifting around those decisions: reading evidence, drafting letters, chasing documents, booking appointments. The approver rule says which caseworker may release each held action. Our guide to AI agent skills by role covers what caseworkers need to know before they approve agent work.
The casework manager owns the rule, agreed with the service's legal and information governance leads. The agent owner configures it. Public bodies face additional transparency and fairness duties, which push more decisions toward a named person, not fewer.
What are the steps?
- Casework manager: lists the agent's actions by depth. Depth 1: reads the case file and evidence. Depth 2: drafts decision letters, evidence requests and case notes. Depth 3: books appointments, sends acknowledgements and routine reminders. Depth 4: changes a payment or entitlement, or closes a case.
- Casework manager: assigns depth 2 approvals to any caseworker on the case. They read the draft, check it against the evidence and send it in their name.
- Casework manager: assigns depth 4 approvals by effect. Granting or increasing support: the case's caseworker. Reducing, stopping or closing: the caseworker plus a senior caseworker.
- Casework manager: writes the house rules that gate holds, such as "no reduction without a recorded attempt to contact the person". Our explainer on what a house rule is covers how these work.
- Casework manager: ties each role to a current certificate and to completed training on the service's own policies.
- Agent owner: configures the holds and files the rule.
| Step | The agent does | Depth | Stays with a person |
|---|---|---|---|
| Read evidence | Summarises documents and gaps | 1 | Nothing |
| Draft letter | Drafts decision or evidence request | 2 | Caseworker approves and sends |
| Book appointment | Sends invite within house rules | 3 | Nothing |
| Grant support | Prepares and holds the change | 4 | Case caseworker |
| Reduce or stop | Prepares and holds the change | 4 | Caseworker plus senior caseworker |
| Decide eligibility | Nothing | none | Caseworker |
Why should reductions and closures have two approvers?
Granting support and removing it are not symmetrical. A wrong grant can usually be corrected later. A wrong stop can leave someone without income, housing or care while they challenge it. That is why the rule asks for a second person when the effect is adverse.
The second approver checks three things: that the person was given a chance to respond, that the evidence relied on is sealed or signed rather than declared by a third party, and that the letter explains the decision and how to challenge it. They do not redo the whole case. Where a decision has legal or similarly significant effects on a person, data protection law in many places limits decisions made solely by automated means, which is another reason the agent prepares and people decide.
Which controls make the rule work, and what evidence do they leave?
Adverse decisions held for two people. Evidence: two named approvers on every reduction, stop or closure in the verdict record.
House rules checked before hold. If a contact attempt is missing, the agent refuses to prepare the reduction and says which bound decided. Evidence: refused verdicts naming the house rule.
Approval rights expire. Evidence: each approver's certificate status on the date of approval.
Provenance visible. A landlord's statement is declared; a payment record from the service's own system is sealed. Evidence: provenance stamps on the held action.
Letters explain the decision. Evidence: sampled letters checked by a senior caseworker monthly.
What should you measure?
- Adverse decisions released with one approver. The target is none.
- Decisions later overturned on review or appeal, traced to whether the agent's draft or the approver's judgement was at fault.
- Refusals for missing contact attempts, which show how often the house rule is doing its job.
- Time from complete evidence to decision, which agents should shorten.
The full grid is in the approver authority matrix for the casework team, and the skills behind each role are in the competency matrix for the casework team.
Where does it usually go wrong?
Caseload pressure turns approvals into clicks. A caseworker with a long queue releases drafts after a glance. Sample approvals and look at time spent per decision.
The senior caseworker becomes a bottleneck. If every adverse decision waits for one person, name more seniors or set response-time targets with cover.
Evidence from third parties is treated as fact. A statement from another organisation is useful but declared. The rule should require a person to weigh it.
Borrowing a finance or onboarding rule. Money thresholds do not fit casework, where the effect on the person matters more than the amount. Compare the approver rule for the onboarding team to see the difference.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator track trains the people who review held actions every day, with module tests set in their own sector and role, so a caseworker's questions are about casework. The practicum asks for at least 95 of every 100 review decisions correct and no missed red line, which suits a service where the red lines protect vulnerable people.
Questions people ask
Can the agent decide simple eligibility on its own?
Even simple eligibility decisions affect people's entitlements. Most services keep the decision with a caseworker and let the agent prepare everything up to it, which saves most of the time without moving the judgement.
What if the person asks to speak to a human?
They should always be able to. The agent hands over to a named caseworker and notes the request on the case.
How often should the rule be reviewed?
After any policy change that alters eligibility, after any significant appeal finding, and at least once a year alongside the certificates that gate approval.