Decide which depth 4 actions need two people, usually payments above a threshold, new payees and changes to bank details. Give each approver a distinct check: the first decides whether the payment should be made, the second confirms the payee and amount independently. Bar the requester, the limit-setter and the agent's builder from either seat, and record both names.
What is two-person approval, and who owns it?
Two-person approval, sometimes called four-eyes, means a held action that moves money needs two named people before it is released. With AI agents it applies to depth 4 actions: those that move money or are hard to undo. The agent prepares the payment and holds it; two people release it. A two-person approval procedure template gives you the form ready to fill.
The process owner for the payments in question owns the rule, usually the financial controller, head of payments or head of claims. The second line signs it off. Our guide to AI agent skills by role covers what approvers need to know, and which roles should approve money moved by an AI agent covers who fills each seat.
What are the steps?
- Process owner: lists the agent's money actions. Payments, refunds, payouts, transfers, and anything that changes where money goes, such as a new payee or new bank details.
- Process owner: sets thresholds. One approver below a set amount, two above it. New payees and bank detail changes need two whatever the amount.
- Process owner: adds cumulative limits. Two approvers when payments to the same payee in a day or week pass a total, which stops splitting.
- Process owner: defines each approver's check. First approver: should this payment be made, on this evidence? Second approver: is the payee who we think, is the amount right, and are the sources sealed or signed?
- Second line: defines who may not approve. The person who requested the payment, the person who set the threshold it was checked against, and the person who built the agent.
- Process owner: ties both seats to current certificates. Agent owner configures the holds so the agent routes to two different eligible people.
- Agent owner: files the rule with the agent's record.
| Step | The agent does | Depth | Stays with a person |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prepare payment | Builds payment with sources | 4 | Nothing yet |
| Check threshold | Holds above the amount or total | 4 | Nothing |
| First approval | Routes to eligible first approver | 4 | First approver decides merits |
| Second approval | Routes to a different eligible person | 4 | Second approver checks payee and amount |
| Release | Releases only with both approvals | 4 | Both names recorded |
| Reject | Returns with reason | 4 | Either approver can stop it |
What should the second approver check that the first does not?
If both approvers check the same thing in the same way, the second adds little. The value of a second person is a different angle. The first approver usually knows the business context: the claim, the invoice, the customer. They decide whether the payment is right in principle. The second approver should look at what fraud and error exploit: the payee details, the amount, and the provenance of each.
That means the second approver sees whether the bank details are sealed (from your own records), signed (from a verified source), or external (from an email or uploaded document). An external claim cannot authorise a payment, so any external payee detail should stop the second approval until verified. The second approver also checks that the amount matches the source document and that the payment is not part of a split.
Approval rights should follow competence. As approval rights should expire with the certificate argues, someone who has not kept their skills current should not hold either seat.
Which controls make it work, and what evidence does each leave?
Two different people. The agent will not route both approvals to the same person. Evidence: two distinct names on each release in the verdict record.
Excluded people cannot approve. Evidence: approver names compared with requester, limit owner and agent builder.
Cumulative limits. Evidence: held payments triggered by totals, not single amounts.
Order and timing recorded. Evidence: timestamps for each approval, showing the second came after the first.
Rights lapse with certificates. Evidence: certificate status for both approvers on the release date.
What should you measure?
- Releases with one approver above threshold. The target is none.
- Second approvals completed in under a minute, which may mean the check is not happening.
- Payments stopped by the second approver, and why. Some stops are the point.
- Payments just under the threshold, which can show splitting.
- Approver availability, so payments do not wait because only one eligible person is on shift.
Where does it usually go wrong?
The second approver rubber-stamps. They trust the first approver and click. Give them a distinct check and ask them to confirm one fact in their own words.
Shared credentials or delegated logins. One person approves both seats using a colleague's access. Each approval must be made by the person named.
Thresholds are set and forgotten. The threshold made sense when it was set; volumes and amounts have since changed. Review it with the second line.
Different teams, different meanings. A contact centre refund and an investment instruction need different second checks. Compare the approver rule for the contact centre and the approver rule for the advice team.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy teaches how a governed agent decides and how human review works, in the Operator track, with tests set in the learner's own industry and role. A business can make both approval seats depend on a current Certified Pryme Operator certificate, checked at source through VerifyDoc.ai by number or QR code.
Questions people ask
Can the agent be one of the two approvers?
No. The agent prepares and holds. Two-person approval means two people. The agent's own checks are part of the preparation, not one of the approvals.
Does the second approver need to be more senior?
Not necessarily. They need to be independent of the payment and competent to check payee and amount. Often a colleague from a different team works best.
What about urgent payments?
Keep both approvals and shorten the response-time target. Urgency is the pressure fraudsters rely on, so it is a reason to keep the second check.