DijitalPi
TREN
Contact
Home/ AI Solutions
Enterprise automation · Scope to be determined during discovery

AI System for Testing Autonomous Workflows Before Deployment

We design an AI system that reviews workflows, sample cases and authority rules together with source and recency information. The system prepares failure scenarios and a checklist but does not treat them as final decisions. If side effects are present or rollback coverage is incomplete, the recommendation does not proceed to action; the process owner and systems administrator make the final assessment.

Representative flow assurance centre panel with a work queue, checks and an audit trail: flow scenario test queue
Flow scenario test queue Representative interface — contains no real data. Tests run in an isolated environment. The panel does not release flows or write to external records.

The problem

In day-to-day operations, workflows, sample cases and authority rules are held in separate records and files, preventing the team from reviewing the same case in a single view.

As a result, the link to source evidence can be lost while preparing failure scenarios and a checklist, leading to repeated checks and uncertainty about the basis for the decision.

Incomplete automation may overlook side effects or incomplete rollback coverage, while poorly controlled automation risks corrupting live records.

What we set out to improve

  • Time required to prepare failure scenarios and a checklist for review
  • Correct routing of cases involving side effects or incomplete rollback coverage to the appropriate specialist queue
  • Recording of recommendations corrected or rejected by the process owner and systems administrator

How the system works

  1. 01 Retrieve workflow, sample case and authority rule data from an authorised source
  2. 02 Verify the source system, record identifier and recency information
  3. 03 Transform the fields into the target process schema
  4. 04 Prepare failure scenario and checklist drafts
  5. 05 Compare the drafts with business rules and source records
  6. 06 Check for exceptions involving side effects or incomplete rollback coverage
  7. 07 Obtain the process owner's and systems administrator's approval, correction or rejection
  8. 08 Write the input, recommendation, changes and final decision to the audit log

Methods we used

  • Source-traceable data extraction from workflows, sample cases and authority rules
  • Structured output that restricts failure scenario and checklist fields through business rules
  • An exception gate that separates cases involving side effects or incomplete rollback coverage
  • A queue that shows the source and recommendation together for the process owner and systems administrator
  • Duplicate-processing controls and rollback records to mitigate the risk of corrupting live records

Where people stay involved

The process owner and systems administrator make the final decision. When side effects are present or rollback coverage is incomplete, the workflow stops and presents the supporting records to the specialists. They can amend or reject the recommendation, or stop the process.

Data and security

Only the fields required for the task are processed from workflows, sample cases and authority rules. Source-system permissions remain in force, and personal or commercially sensitive data is minimised before being provided to the model. Every read, recommendation, human amendment and write to the target system is logged.

Who this suits

A good fit

  • Teams carrying out repetitive reviews in enterprise automation
  • Companies with defined ownership for sources and approvals
  • Organisations that want exceptions to remain under human oversight

Not a good fit

  • Where source data is not current
  • Where the decision owner and rollback process are not defined
  • Where the existing method adequately handles the low volume

Frequently asked questions

What data is used?

Workflows, sample cases and authority rules are used. The exact connections, fields and retention boundaries are determined during the access review.

How are exceptions handled?

The workflow stops when side effects are present or rollback coverage is incomplete. The record goes to the process owner's and systems administrator's queue with its source evidence.

How is the risk of incorrect automation controlled?

Because of the risk of corrupting live records, no final action is taken without human approval. The source, recommendation and human decision are recorded separately.

Project led by:DijitalPi

✦ PI ASSISTANT · ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

online

Ask the DijitalPi AI Assistant your question

No need to fill in a form and wait for a reply — write your question and let Pi, trained on DijitalPi's 20 years of know-how, answer within seconds.

  • Instant answers, 24/7
  • Service-specific context — no generic replies
  • Can connect you to a free consultation if you wish
Hi! 👋 I'm Pi — DijitalPi's AI assistant. Write whatever you'd like to know about AI System for Testing Autonomous Workflows Before Deployment and I'll answer right away.

Pi Assistant answers are for information purposes; for a proposal get in touch.

ASK AI ABOUT DIJITALPI

Let an AI explain what DijitalPi does.

Opens your chosen assistant with a ready research prompt. It reads the site live and answers.