The approval gate was not a feature we planned, it was something we built after we got it wrong
When we first started testing dolv with early users, we did not have an explicit approval workflow.
The assumption was that teams would configure the level of automation they wanted. Some would run fully autonomous. Some would check in. Trust levels would vary.
What actually happened: nobody wanted full autonomy for external actions. Every team, without exception, wanted to see customer-facing actions before they executed. Not because they did not trust the AI. Because the cost of a mistake reaching 500 people is not the same as a mistake reaching one person.
The approval gate became the product, not a setting.
Prepare, queue, edit if needed, approve, execute, confirm the platform received it. That sequence is not a limitation. It is the design. And it is the reason teams trust dolv with their outreach and campaigns in a way they would not trust a fully autonomous system.
Replies
the thing I'd worry about with a mandatory approval gate isn't the first wrong action, it's the five hundredth clean one. after a few months of every queued item looking fine, "review before send" quietly turns into "click approve without really reading it," and now you've added latency without actually buying back the safety it's there for. do you track anything that signals whether someone's actually reading each item before approving, edit rate, reject rate, time spent per item, or is time-to-approve mostly treated as a UX metric rather than a trust signal?