Override rate alone can mislead. A low rate could mean the model is performing well, or it could mean reviewers are anchoring on the model output. I'll use the blind-sample idea. I'd split the evaluation into normal cases and blinded cases, then compare reviewer agreement and override behaviour between them. I'll also track override direction explicitly. Medium to Critical tells us something different from Critical to High, especially when a deterministic safety floor is involved. For reasons, a fixed taxonomy works better for analysis than free text alone. I can keep the free-text explanation for context and require a structured reason code in the audit trail. That replaces "Did the human review it?" with a better question. Did the review process add independent signal beyond the model's recommendation?
