For some replies, after it has earned it. An AI agent can send routine, factual replies on its own once it has proven, on your own past cases, that it gets that type right. Replies that commit the business, answer complaints, touch regulated topics or reach customers in difficulty stay as drafts a person sends.
Why not review everything forever?
Because review costs time, and people reviewing a stream of correct, simple replies stop reading them carefully. After the hundredth accurate order-status reply, a reviewer clicks approve without looking. That gives you the cost of review without its protection. Better to let the agent send what it has proved it can handle, and keep reviewers' attention for replies where it matters.
The opposite mistake is to remove review across the board because the agent did well on average. An agent can be excellent at delivery questions and poor at billing disputes. Sending without review should be decided per reply type, not per agent.
Which replies can go without review?
| Reply type | Without review? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Order or delivery status from the system | Yes, once certified | Facts from a system of record; easy to correct |
| How-to answers from the knowledge base | Yes, once certified | Grounded in approved text |
| Confirmations of actions the agent completed | Yes, once certified | The system confirmed the action; see whether an AI agent can send order confirmations |
| Replies containing refunds, credits or exceptions | Draft | Commitments of money or policy |
| Responses to complaints | Draft | Often regulated; tone and content both matter |
| Replies about claims, credit or account restrictions | Draft | Outcomes and reasons need care |
| Replies to customers showing distress | Draft or handover | A person should be involved |
| First message to a customer who did not contact you | Separate rules | Outbound has its own consent and content rules |
The last row is its own question, covered in whether an AI agent can send proactive messages to customers.
What conditions must hold before a reply type goes unreviewed?
Evidence from drafts. While the agent drafts and people send, record how often reviewers change the draft and how much. A reply type where reviewers rarely change anything is a candidate.
A passing test run. Replay the agent against past cases of that reply type. Every floor must clear: grounded, right verdict, right escalation, in scope, no harm.
A reply check in place. Even unreviewed replies pass an automatic check for commitment language, figures and dates before sending. The method is in checking support replies for promises the business cannot keep.
A way back. If quality drops, the reply type returns to drafts the same day.
An illustrative example
Take an online pharmacy's email agent. It starts with every reply drafted for a pharmacist or support worker to send.
After several weeks, the review data shows that replies about delivery status are almost never edited, while replies about prescription queries are often rewritten. The team replays past delivery cases, they pass, and delivery-status replies move to sending without review. Prescription queries stay as drafts, and because they involve health information and clinical judgement, the team decides they always will.
A month later a courier changes its tracking format. The agent's delivery replies start quoting the wrong dates. The weekly sample catches it, delivery replies go back to drafts that day, and they return to unreviewed sending only after the integration is fixed and replayed.
What stays with a person regardless?
The decision to move a reply type from draft to unreviewed belongs to a named owner, not to the agent or to an automatic threshold. So does the decision to move it back. People also keep the replies where tone and judgement carry as much weight as facts: complaints, bereavement, hardship.
How to run the draft stage well is covered in drafting replies to support tickets for staff to send.
Unreviewed replies should still make clear they come from an AI. Customers deserve to know whether a person read their message, as argued in customers trust agents that say what they are.
Where Pryme fits
In Pryme, sending without review is depth 3 for that reply type; drafting is depth 2. Depth is earned on Attest evidence from your own cases, capped by the role's ceiling and limits, and a run that clears no depth drops the agent to depth 1 the same day. More is in the AI support agent that knows when to say no.
Questions people ask
How do we know reviewers are actually reviewing?
Track how long reviews take and how often drafts change. Very fast approvals with no changes on complex reply types are a warning sign.
Should unreviewed replies be sampled?
Yes, every week, weighted towards newer reply types. Sampling is how you catch drift before customers do.
Can the agent decide which replies need review?
It can flag replies it is unsure of for review. It should not be able to send a reply type it is not certified for.