Limitations of Automated Governance Review
Automated tools can assist with structuring and reviewing complex documentation, but their use is subject to inherent limitations. Understanding these limitations is essential to the appropriate interpretation and professional use of outputs generated through automated governance review.
Dependence on the documented record
Automated governance review operates solely on the basis of the material provided. Where documents are incomplete, inconsistently presented, or unavailable, those conditions necessarily constrain the scope of any analysis performed.
Automated tools do not resolve gaps in the record, substitute missing material, or infer content beyond what is explicitly documented.
Inability to assess context and nuance
Governance and procedural matters often depend on contextual factors, professional judgment, and qualitative assessment. Automated review cannot account for context that is not captured within the documented record, nor can it weigh competing considerations or exercise discretion.
No determination or evaluative judgment
Automated governance review does not determine whether procedural steps are adequate, appropriate, or compliant. It does not reach conclusions as to fairness, lawfulness, or propriety, and does not provide evaluative judgments.
Any assessment of significance, materiality, or consequence remains the responsibility of the professional user.
Risk of over-reliance
Outputs generated through automated review are intended to support, not replace, professional analysis. Treating such outputs as determinative or authoritative risks misinterpretation and inappropriate use.
Role within professional workflows
Automated governance review is most effective when used as a preliminary or supporting step within established professional workflows. Its value lies in structure and visibility, while responsibility for interpretation, judgment, and reliance remains with the professional at all times.