The symptom is specific: human review becomes a rubber stamp. Start with the affected item and identify the decision or input that could produce this behavior.
Find the likely cause
Reviewers have no criteria or enough context.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Provide the brief, sources, and explicit blocking defects.
Human review is most valuable when it focuses on the claims, decisions, and contextual judgments that matter to the final reader.
Check that the repair worked
Ask reviewers to record evidence for approval or required correction.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: the wrong person approves technical claims. Route specialized claims to someone able to verify them.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track defects caught, defects missed, and review effort by content type.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.