AI-generated content—including operational procedures—can contain errors, omissions, hallucinations, and contextually inappropriate guidance. Human review is a critical quality control and accountability mechanism that ensures generated procedures are accurate, complete, and appropriate for actual operational use.

Why A is Correct: The ISACA AAIR guidance on human oversight identifies the absence of human review as the greatest risk in AI-generated documentation. Without review, errors and AI hallucinations are propagated directly into operational use, potentially causing safety incidents, compliance violations, or operational failures. Human review is the last line of defense against AI output quality failures, particularly in operational procedure contexts where incorrect instructions can have serious consequences.

Why B is Wrong: Outdated procedures are a content quality issue that would typically be caught during human review. The greater concern is that no review is occurring, which allows all types of errors—including outdated content—to reach operational use unchallenged.

Why C is Wrong: Policy misalignment is a governance concern but represents a specific type of error that would be identified if adequate human review were performed. The absence of review is the root governance failure.

Why D is Wrong: Using AI to generate procedures for high-risk activities is a deployment scope concern that raises the stakes of errors. However, the fundamental governance failure—and the greatest concern—is that no human verification occurs regardless of the risk level of the activity.