Key takeaways
- State what the assistant prepared and what a person has already checked.
- Preserve the distinction between source information and proposed assumptions.
- Show material changes from the previous estimate.
- Make exceptions actionable for the receiving reviewer.
- Keep approval to rely on the estimate separate from authority to make a commercial commitment.
Tell the reviewer what they are receiving
Identify the case and the purpose of the estimate. The receiving person may be checking a first draft, reviewing a revised assumption or deciding whether a comparison is ready for a particular use. Their task should be explicit.
Describe the assistant's contribution in practical terms. It may have organised source values, applied a defined calculation or drafted an explanation. Do not imply that all parts have been independently verified simply because the output is complete-looking.
State which human checks have already occurred and which remain requested. A reviewer should not have to guess whether the preparer compared the inputs with the source or merely looked over the total.
The framework below is an original editorial proposal. It concerns a commercial review process and makes no claim about any particular product's features or performance.
Preserve the chain from source to result
Give the reviewer a practical route from a material output back to the relevant input and its evidence. The route should identify the source meaning, any accepted transformation and the calculation using the value.
Keep supplied facts separate from assumptions introduced by the preparer. A quoted expense and an internally selected allowance can occupy similar positions in a model while having different evidential status. The reviewer needs to see that distinction without opening every cell.
Where the assistant proposed an interpretation, record whether a person accepted it and on what basis. An unreviewed suggestion should not appear as if it came directly from the source.
Avoid transferring a mass of disconnected attachments. A concise source register linked to the material assumptions makes review easier while retaining access to the underlying documents through the approved route.
Provide an explanation the receiver can test
NISTIR 8312 treats explanations understandable to their intended users as a distinct principle. The handover should therefore match the reviewing analyst's task.
For this proposed process, explain why the comparison changes when an assumption changes. Point to the input and calculation involved rather than giving only a fluent narrative about the result.
The reviewer should be able to challenge the explanation. If a stated reason does not match the worksheet, the mismatch becomes an exception to resolve before reliance. The assistant's summary is another part of the output to inspect, not independent evidence that the calculation is correct.
Use ordinary commercial language where it preserves precision. Technical implementation detail can remain available to specialists without obscuring the assumptions the reviewing desk must understand.
Use a review handover sheet
| Handover item | Information to supply | Reviewer's next question |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Intended use and decision context | Is this the review I am authorised to perform? |
| Source basis | Relevant evidence and its status | Do the selected inputs represent the case? |
| Accepted assumptions | Human decisions and remaining qualifications | Are these assumptions appropriate for the intended use? |
| Calculation basis | Model version and material transformations | Can the result be reproduced consistently? |
| Changes | Difference from the previous estimate | Why did the result or conclusion move? |
| Exceptions | Specific unresolved issue and affected output | What evidence or decision is still needed? |
| Requested outcome | Accept, return for correction or permit a limited use | What will happen after my response? |
Do not make the reviewer repeat every preparatory action by default. Show the checks already performed and the evidence retained so they can focus on the requested review while investigating anything that appears inconsistent.
At the same time, avoid using a previous check as a blanket assurance. A check performed before a material amendment may need to be revisited for the changed part of the estimate.
Make the change from the previous version visible
When handing over a revision, describe which inputs, assumptions or model rules changed. A new total without a change summary forces the receiving analyst to reconstruct the work and can hide an unintended alteration.
Separate commercial changes from calculation corrections. New source evidence may change the case being estimated, while a corrected formula may change the result for the same case. Those events should not be described as the same kind of movement.
Identify downstream effects. A revised duration assumption may affect several expense lines, so the handover should explain that the comparison was updated consistently rather than changing only one prominent field.
If the previous version was circulated, state whether its conclusion remains valid. The reviewer's response may need to trigger a correction to other recipients, not just acceptance of the latest file.
Fictional case: a polished summary hides an open expense basis
A fictional analyst uses assistance to prepare a voyage comparison. Most inputs have been checked, but the basis of a service charge remains unresolved. The assistant's summary describes one alternative as preferable without mentioning that dependency.
The preparer sends the summary and workbook to a senior reviewer with a request for approval. The reviewer initially assumes the expense basis has been settled because the narrative presents a definite conclusion.
During source review, the open question becomes apparent. The team revises the handover to show the unresolved basis, identify the affected comparison and request a specific clarification from the authorised contact. The recommendation becomes conditional on that response.
The case illustrates why a readable explanation can still be incomplete. The review handover must preserve uncertainty that matters to the decision, even when most of the estimate is ready.
Transfer exceptions as specific tasks
An exception should state what is unclear, which output it affects and who can resolve it. “Check costs” is too broad when the actual problem concerns the period covered by a particular response.
Give the reviewer access to the relevant source and the proposed interpretation. If the issue requires another specialist, identify the requested question without asking the reviewer to infer the escalation route from background correspondence.
Record whether work can proceed on other parts while the issue remains open. The responsible owner may permit a provisional comparison for a limited purpose, but that boundary should be visible in the handover.
Do not treat an unanswered question as implicitly accepted at shift change. Transfer its ownership and expected next step explicitly so it remains part of the live decision record.
Capture the human review result accurately
The reviewer may accept the estimate for its stated use, request correction or accept a bounded assumption subject to a condition. Record the actual decision rather than reducing every positive response to a broad approved label.
Link corrections back to the affected assumptions or calculations. This helps the preparer implement the response accurately and gives later reviewers a reason for the change.
Keep commercial commitment separate. Acceptance of a model for internal comparison does not by itself authorise an offer, fixture, payment or operational instruction. Follow the organisation's actual authority arrangements for the next action.
Finally, identify who owns the estimate after review. If a pending source response or changed case arrives later, someone must assess whether the accepted output needs to be reopened.
Common mistakes
Avoid handing over only a total, concealing assumptions inside source fields or treating the assistant's explanation as independent verification. Do not transfer unresolved work with vague instructions.
Another mistake is recording a limited review acceptance as broad commercial authority. Preserve the purpose and conditions of the decision actually made.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Should the handover state that AI assistance was used?
Describe the assistance relevant to the review and the checks already performed. The receiver needs an accurate account of how the output was prepared and what remains to verify.
What should accompany a revised estimate?
A change summary identifying affected inputs, assumptions, calculation rules and conclusions. Include the evidence needed to understand material differences from the previous version.
Can a reviewer accept an estimate with an unresolved item?
The responsible person may allow a defined provisional use if appropriate. Record the open item, its consequence and the exact limit of the acceptance.
Does review acceptance authorise sending a commercial offer?
Not automatically. Follow the actual authority arrangements for that separate action and preserve any conditions attached to the reviewed estimate.