A caseworker's practicum log has one row for every case decision the caseworker makes on the agent's work over two weeks: the draft they were given, what they decided, the reason in words the person on the case would understand, the supervisor's independent decision, and whether a safeguarding or disclosure red line was involved. A template and example follow.
What should a caseworker's log capture?
Casework is different from most review queues in one way that shapes the log: the decision lands on a person, often one in difficulty, and the reason has to be explainable to them. So alongside the usual columns, this log asks the caseworker to write the reason as the person would hear it. If they cannot, the decision is not ready.
The agent's work in a typical casework team is to summarise the case file (depth 1), draft letters requesting evidence (depth 2), draft an eligibility or needs assessment for a person to decide (depth 2) and book appointments within set rules (depth 3). Anything that changes what someone is entitled to stays with a person. The log tests whether the caseworker treats the draft as a draft.
Which red lines go in the header?
Three, written plainly:
- An adverse decision reaches the person without a caseworker deciding it. Approving a drafted refusal without reading the evidence counts.
- A safeguarding indicator is missed. Any sign of risk to the person or a dependant that is not referred the same day.
- Personal data goes to someone without authority. A drafted letter addressed to a former partner, or details shared with a caller who has not been verified.
Public bodies carry extra duties of transparency and fairness, and some public uses of AI are classed as high-risk under the EU AI Act. The log is part of how a team shows those duties were met by people, not assumed of the agent.
The practicum log template
| Column | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Entry | Number and date |
| Case ref | Pseudonymised |
| Case stage | New claim, evidence request, assessment, review, closure |
| Agent's draft | Letter, assessment or booking, and its verdict |
| Facts the draft relies on | Each with provenance: sealed (case system), signed (verified third party), declared (the person's own account), external |
| Caseworker's decision | Send, edit and send, return, decide differently, escalate |
| Reason, as the person would hear it | One or two plain sentences |
| Safeguarding or disclosure flag | None / raised / missed |
| Supervisor's decision | Recorded before reading the caseworker's |
| Match | Yes / no / defensible |
| Debrief note |
Close each day with three lines: decisions made, flags raised, and anything the caseworker was unsure of. Close the fortnight with the totals against the bar of at least 95 correct in every 100 and no missed red line.
A worked example
Take a sample local housing support team. Values are illustrative.
| Entry | Stage | Agent's draft | Caseworker | Reason as heard | Flag | Supervisor | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Evidence request | Letter asking for three months of bank statements | Edit: two months, as policy requires | "We need two months of statements to check your income." | None | Same edit | Yes |
| 13 | Assessment | Draft finds the household ineligible on declared income | Return: income figure is declared and contradicts a signed employer letter on file | "We need to check your income again before we decide." | None | Return | Yes |
| 14 | Review | Routine review letter; case notes mention a child missing school and an unpaid utility debt | Send letter | "Your review is due." | Missed | Hold letter; refer to safeguarding lead today | No |
Entry 13 shows the skill the practicum exists for: the agent's draft relied on a declared figure, while a signed document said otherwise. Entry 14 fails the bar. The letter itself was harmless; what was missed was the note in the file. The debrief note reads: "Read the case notes, not only the draft."
How do you read the log at the end?
Look past the total. Count how often the caseworker edited drafts rather than sending them as they were; a caseworker who never edits is either working with a very good agent or not reading. Count escalations, which are healthy in a new caseworker. And check whether repeat mismatches cluster by case stage: weakness on reviews is common, because reviews look routine.
The same structure adapts to other roles where decisions land on individuals; compare the practicum log for paralegals and the log for underwriters. The setup for the fortnight is in how to run a two-week practicum for caseworkers, and the certificate question in do caseworkers need a certificate to approve AI agent actions. For the wider skills picture, see AI literacy and certification for people who work with agents.
Questions people ask
Can caseworkers practise on closed cases instead of live ones?
For rare situations, yes, using anonymised past cases. Most entries should be live, because live cases carry the pressure and incomplete information the caseworker will face.
Who is responsible if a drafted letter goes out wrongly during the practicum?
The supervisor's decision is the one actioned, so a wrong letter should not leave. Wider accountability is covered in are caseworkers accountable for an AI agent's mistakes.
How much time does the log add?
About a minute per entry for the caseworker, most of it writing the reason. That minute is also the practice the log is testing.