AIP-C01 practice question: Human review and approval in AI workflows
Implementation and Integration A free question from our original AIP-C01 practice exam. Try it, then open the answer to see why each option is right or wrong.
A bank's loan operations team uses a generative AI workflow to draft adverse-action letters for declined loan applications. Each draft must be approved or rejected by a credit officer in an internal web app before any letter is sent.
Officers respond anywhere from ten minutes to two days after a draft is created. The workflow must not keep a Lambda function or other paid compute running while it waits for a decision.
No letter may be sent without a recorded approval, and a rejected draft must be regenerated with the officer's comments added to the prompt. The team wants the least custom code to maintain.
Which design meets these requirements?
Choose one answer.
AA. Run a Lambda function that checks a DynamoDB table every 30 seconds for an approval record, and keeps checking for up to two days before it sends or discards the draft.
BB. Email each draft to the officer through Amazon SES, and have the workflow send the letter automatically after 24 hours unless the officer rejects it in the web app.
CC. Have the officer's approval button in the web app call the send-letter Lambda function directly, and skip recording the decision in the workflow so that no state has to be stored.
DD. Use a Step Functions Standard workflow task with .waitForTaskToken that saves the token with the draft, and have the web app call SendTaskSuccess with the decision.
Show the answer and explanation
Answer: D
A. Wrong: A Lambda function cannot run for two days, and a polling loop would hold compute open and bill for every check. The design is also costly to maintain, which conflicts with the requirement for the least custom code.
B. Wrong: Sending a letter after a timeout means a letter can go out with no recorded approval, which breaks the rule. The design also does not regenerate drafts with officer comments on rejection.
C. Wrong: Calling the sender directly removes the approval record that the audit trail depends on, and the workflow has no way to regenerate a rejected draft. It also mixes approval logic into the web app.
D. Right: A task that waits for a callback holds no compute while it waits, and a Standard workflow can pause for days. The callback records each decision, and a Choice state then routes approved drafts to sending and rejected drafts back to generation with the comments. Learn more: Wait for a callback with a task token (opens in a new tab)
Explanation
Step Functions can pause a workflow at a task that waits for a callback, and a task token lets the web app resume it with the officer's decision. The Choice state then sends only approved letters and regenerates rejected drafts with the comments. Polling, timed auto-send and direct calls each break the waiting, approval or regeneration rule.
Want more on Human review and approval in AI workflows? The 5 full-length practice sets have 5 more Human review and approval in AI workflows questions, 375 in all, none of them in the free exam. One payment of $14.99, no subscription. See the practice sets →