Human approval does not scale the way you think.

Manual gates sound responsible.

Someone reviews. Someone approves. Nothing risky slips through.

In practice, they fail quietly.

Approvals Become Rituals

Over time, manual approvals turn into habits.

Approve because:

  • the build looks normal
  • nothing failed
  • this is routine
  • people are waiting

Approval loses meaning. It becomes a checkbox.

The first few times you approve a production deployment, you take it seriously. You check the changeset. You review test results. You verify that everything looks correct. You ask questions if something seems off.

By the hundredth deployment, the process feels routine. The build passed. The tests passed. The security scan passed. What are you actually reviewing? The automation already validated everything that can be validated mechanically.

So you approve. Because saying no without a concrete reason feels obstructive. Because the team is waiting. Because this happens multiple times per day and spending ten minutes on each one is not sustainable.

The manual gate becomes theater. It adds latency without adding value.

Humans Are Bad at Repetitive Judgment

Humans excel at novel problems. They are terrible at repetitive validation.

When approvals are frequent:

  • attention drops
  • scrutiny fades
  • risk assessment degrades

The system trains people to approve quickly.

This is not a moral failing. It is human nature. We are pattern matchers. We notice anomalies. We get bored with repetition.

If you ask someone to review 50 deployments per week, they will not give equal attention to all 50. They will develop heuristics. “If all the checks passed, approve.” That heuristic is correct most of the time. But it fails exactly when you need it most: when something subtle is wrong that automated checks did not catch.

Studies on human vigilance show this consistently. People performing repetitive monitoring tasks experience rapid degradation in attention. False negatives increase. Reaction times slow. The longer the task continues, the worse performance becomes.

Manual deployment gates put humans in exactly this situation. Frequent repetition. High cognitive load. Low tolerance for error. This is a setup for failure.

Gates Slow Delivery Without Reducing Risk

Manual gates added latency. They did not add confidence.

Real risk reduction came from:

  • automated checks
  • consistent validation
  • clear signals
  • enforced standards

Humans stayed in the loop. They just stopped being the gate.

We measured our manual approval process. Average approval time: 45 minutes. Time spent actually reviewing: less than 2 minutes. The rest was waiting for someone to notice the approval request, context switch, and click the button.

In that 2 minutes of review, what did approvers catch? Almost nothing. The vast majority of issues were caught by automated tests, security scans, or smoke tests after deployment. Manual review caught configuration mistakes maybe once every few months.

The cost was clear. The benefit was marginal.

When we removed mandatory manual approvals for standard deployments, deployment frequency increased. Lead time decreased. Failure rate stayed the same. The manual gate had been slowing us down without making us safer.

Where Humans Still Matter

Humans are still essential for:

  • exception handling
  • emergency decisions
  • ambiguous scenarios
  • high impact changes

They should not be the default control.

We kept human involvement for specific cases. Deploying during a freeze period. Bypassing a failed check with justification. Deploying a service for the first time. Making schema changes to production databases.

These are high-stakes, low-frequency events. They benefit from human judgment. The risk is clear. The cost of delay is acceptable. The decision is not routine.

For everything else, automation decides. Humans monitor. They intervene when automation fails or when the situation is ambiguous. But they are not in the critical path for every deployment.

This is how pilots use autopilot. The automation handles routine operations. The human monitors for anomalies and takes control when needed. It works because the division of labor is clear.

Final Thought

Manual gates feel safe. They are not scalable.

Automation with clear standards reduces risk more reliably than human repetition.

Related reading: