Regulate the loop
Use it when you cannot review every agent edit yourself.
"Human in the loop" means a person checks each item. That works until agents produce more work than your curators can read. Then the person becomes the bottleneck, and the usual result is that review turns into rubber-stamping.
DisMech uses a different phrase: human regulating the loop. Curators work on the process that produces entries, not on each entry.
The pattern
Spend curator time on these three jobs.
Find patterns, not errors. One wrong entry is a fix. The same wrong entry five times is a process problem. Look for the repeated kind, then curate examples and counter-examples into the instructions or the skill that produced them.
Review the reviews. Your automated reviewer has its own failure modes. It misses some things and it fixates on others. Read a sample of its reviews and ask what it did not catch, and what it complained about that did not matter. Then change the checklist.
Tune how eager each process is. Scanners and automated reviewers each have a cadence and a threshold. Some fire too often and create noise. Some never fire and miss work. This is a dial, and someone has to be responsible for setting it.
Say who is accountable
The hardest part is not technical. Projects break down when nobody has said whether a contributor is answerable for what their agent wrote.
DisMech states its answer in CONTRIBUTING.md: contributors are not assumed to
have verified everything their agent produced, and the default assumption is
that issues and comments are AI-generated. If you write something yourself and
want that known, you mark it [human authored].
You do not have to make the same choice. You do have to make one, and write it down.
Who does this
- DisMech states the policy in
CONTRIBUTING.mdand asks contributors to curate the process. - AI Gene Review collects feedback from domain experts through voting and an evaluation form, so disagreement reaches the project without requiring Git.