Giving someone responsibility for an automated process is only part of the design. That person also needs enough information to understand what happened, authority to interrupt an unsuitable action and a practical way to correct the result.
Consider a hypothetical assistant that prepares and sends routine replies. Reviewing the wording does not establish that the recipient was correct or that sending was authorised for that particular case. Supervision needs to follow the action as well as the text.
A useful review can examine the instruction, the source used, the action taken and the observed outcome. Exceptions deserve attention because they show where the process moved beyond its usual conditions. The aim is to locate a cause that can be corrected, rather than simply assign blame after an error.
Changes also need to remain identifiable. A new instruction, destination or tool can alter behaviour even when the underlying model stays the same. Version records and limited tests help the team understand which change affected the work.
Autonomy can operate within clear boundaries without requiring a person to approve every routine step. Those boundaries become meaningful when the responsible team can verify results and intervene when necessary. A supervisor with a title but no practical access cannot provide that capability.