Human authority stays after the Verdict.

Human-AI decision making is not a model that signs for the company. It is a process where analysis can recommend and people still authorize.

The split that matters

An AI Verdict can say Vendor B. The Decision Owner can still choose Vendor A and write why. Approvers can still bind that Human Decision to a named Verdict version.

If you cannot see both, you do not have governance. You have a recommendation wearing a signature.

What to preserve

The recommendation, the Human Decision, the override reason, dissent, residual risk, who approved, and the later Outcome. That is how you audit an AI-assisted Decision.

How Argumont uses this

Judge writes the Verdict. The authorized human records Adopt, Adopt with Conditions, Choose Another Course, Defer, or Reopen. Challenger can still have been right on a claim the organization overrode for a contractual reason.

What the record keeps

If you cannot see the recommendation, the Human Decision, the override reason, dissent, residual risk, who approved, and the later Outcome, you do not have governance. You have a recommendation wearing a signature. Challenger can still have been right on a claim the organization overrode for a contractual reason.

Champion and Challenger test the case, Inspector checks the evidence, and Judge records the Verdict for the Decision Owner.

Bring Argumont a Decision worth challenging.

Structure the question, test the evidence and the assumptions, and preserve what your organization ultimately decides.

See Decision governance