Separate understanding, proposing and executing
A system can classify a request, retrieve information and draft a response without having permission to change a booking. These are different levels of authority and should be designed separately.
In a first release, an assistant may produce a structured recommendation for an agent. The operator can verify the context, check the commercial detail and decide what happens next. That is a legitimate production workflow, not a failed attempt at full autonomy.
Classify actions by consequence
Routine information retrieval may need fewer controls than a cancellation, refund, fare change or payment action. The right boundary depends on your operation, but the policy should be explicit and testable.
For each action, define who can approve it, what evidence they must see and when the approval expires. If the quote or booking state changes after approval, the system should not assume the earlier decision is still valid.
Treat messages and documents as untrusted input
OWASP identifies excessive agency as a risk when language-model systems have too much functionality, permission or autonomy. Its mitigation guidance supports limiting what tools can do and introducing appropriate approval.
For travel workflows, customer messages and retrieved content should not be able to grant new permissions or override the operating policy. Enforce authority in the application and tool layer, rather than relying only on a sentence in a model prompt.
Design a review that a busy agent can use
An approval request should show the intended action, the affected record, the source of commercial information and what will change. Avoid asking someone to approve a long conversation without a concise decision summary.
Make rejection and correction first-class actions. The operator should be able to explain what is wrong, return the work for more information and continue manually. A queue that allows only approve or abandon will push staff toward workarounds.
Record outcome, not just intent
After an approved action, distinguish the request being sent from the supplier confirming it. Record the response and expose pending or failed states. Do not tell the traveller the change is complete merely because a tool was called.
Define recovery before expanding authority: who investigates an uncertain result, how duplicate actions are avoided and what information the next agent receives. Test these cases with operational staff, not only the engineering team.
A sensible first pilot
Choose one repetitive workflow with a named owner and a clear approval boundary. Evaluate the quality of assembled information, approval turnaround, rejection reasons and the accuracy of confirmed outcomes.
Broader automation can follow evidence from those tests. The objective is less repetitive work with accountable control—not the highest possible number of autonomous actions.
Sources & further reading
External sources support the specific industry context referenced in this guide. The workflow recommendations are Appnox’s proposed approach, not claims of industry-wide results.