New caseworkers who will review an agent's work need a checklist that puts decisions about people first. It covers limited access and red lines before they start, shadowing on held case decisions, the shared foundation and reviewer training, a marked practicum on real cases including vulnerable people, and a sign-off that defines exactly which case outcomes they may approve.
What does a casework reviewer decide?
Casework covers many settings: benefits and grants, housing, complaints, licensing, case management in a charity or a public body. In each, the agent gathers evidence, checks it against eligibility rules, chases missing documents and drafts a decision letter. That is depth 1 to 3 work. The decision itself, especially one that refuses support or has a significant effect on someone's life, stays with a person.
There is a legal reason as well as a practical one. Under GDPR Article 22, people have rights around decisions based solely on automated processing that have legal or similarly significant effects. Where a casework body is public, it faces additional transparency and fairness duties too. So the reviewer is not a rubber stamp; they are the person who makes the decision, using the agent's preparation. Training must make that distinction stick.
How do you use this checklist?
The casework manager owns it and fills in the team-specific items before the reviewer's first day. Each item is ticked with a date. The reviewer cannot approve any outcome until the sign-off section is complete. For how the general idea of onboarding applies here, see what onboarding is. For the full sequence across teams, see the guide to training teams for AI agents.
The checklist
| # | Check | Why it matters in casework | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Read-only access; no right to issue decisions | Prevents a decision before competence is shown | Access log |
| 2 | Agent capabilities listed: evidence gathering (1), document chasing (3), decision letter drafts (2) | Reviewer knows what the agent has and has not done | Signed acknowledgement |
| 3 | Red lines signed: never issue a refusal without reading the evidence; never act on a third-party claim about the person without verification; always route signs of risk to safety at once | These are the errors that harm people | Signed copy |
| 4 | Shadow a certified reviewer for two days | Shows how held decisions are actually made | Buddy confirms |
| 5 | See one case where the agent's evidence summary missed something | Breaks over-trust early | Buddy note |
| 6 | Shared foundation complete | Shared vocabulary: depth, verdicts, the record | Test score |
| 7 | Reviewer modules and written exam complete | Formal standard | Exam result |
| 8 | Two-week practicum on real held decisions, each confirmed by a buddy | Competence on live work | Practicum record |
| 9 | Practicum includes a refusal, a vulnerable person and conflicting evidence | Tests the hardest calls | Case list |
| 10 | Incident drill completed | Knows what to do if the agent stops | Drill log |
| 11 | Assessor sign-off | Independent confirmation | Signed record |
| 12 | Approval rights granted, with any outcome types excluded | Rights match proven competence | Rights register |
| 13 | Renewal date set | Keeps competence current | Register entry |
Worked example
An illustrative housing association uses an agent to process repair-priority and hardship-fund applications. Sample Caseworker J joins from a frontline housing role.
Before his first day, items 1 to 3 are done; his signed red lines include "never refuse hardship support without reading the full application". In shadowing, his buddy shows him a case where the agent's summary missed a medical letter attached as a second file; the case was upgraded. Over weeks 1 to 5 he completes the foundation, modules and exam. His practicum covers 70 held decisions, including a hardship refusal he correctly reverses after finding unreported income had been counted twice, and a tenant whose email mentions not feeling safe at home, which he routes to the safeguarding lead within the hour.
At sign-off, his approval rights cover repair priorities and hardship awards up to the fund's standard limit; refusals go to a senior caseworker for a second look during his first three months. The training method is set out in how to train the casework team to review AI agent decisions, and the drill in item 10 follows how to run an AI agent incident drill for the casework team.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy covers items 6 to 11. Module tests are set in the learner's own industry and role, so a caseworker is tested on casework, not invoices. Operator certification needs a written exam and a two-week practicum with no missed red line, signed off by a Pryme assessor, and the certificate shows as current or lapsed when checked at source.
Questions people ask
Why give a new reviewer narrower rights than experienced colleagues?
Refusals have the largest effect on people and generate the most challenges. A short period of second review on refusals protects the person affected and the reviewer.
How does a casework checklist differ from a claims one?
Claims reviewers mostly decide money; caseworkers decide eligibility and support that may not be financial at all. Compare with the reviewer onboarding checklist for the claims team.
Do collections teams face similar issues?
Yes, especially around vulnerability. The reviewer onboarding checklist for the collections team handles hardship and affordability in a debt setting.