The input isn't the problem IMHO, it's the output.
If a human is in the loop at all then it's because they may be expected to make a decision. And that decision is based on information. And that information needs to be presented unambiguously.
One of the smartest things I read on feedback here was to start with a balance-in, balance-out counting system.
It's unambiguous: if the number of things being processed and output is different than the number of things input, that tells me something.
And that's where automated systems get dangerous. It's incredibly risky if instead of informing and shrinking their response space, they expand it in an attempt to auto-correct the issue.
If a human is in the loop at all then it's because they may be expected to make a decision. And that decision is based on information. And that information needs to be presented unambiguously.
One of the smartest things I read on feedback here was to start with a balance-in, balance-out counting system.
It's unambiguous: if the number of things being processed and output is different than the number of things input, that tells me something.
And that's where automated systems get dangerous. It's incredibly risky if instead of informing and shrinking their response space, they expand it in an attempt to auto-correct the issue.