Human in the loop describes a process where a person reviews and verifies AI-generated content before it is relied on or published, rather than letting the tool's output stand on its own.
“Human in the loop” is one of the seven headings in the Federal Court's own Interim Principles and Guidelines on the Court's Use of Artificial Intelligence (dated September 29, 2025), and its earlier notice put the same idea plainly: “The Court urges verification of any AI-created content.” The Alberta tri-court notice on large language models — issued jointly by Alberta's Court of Appeal, Court of King's Bench and Court of Justice — carries the identical heading and requires that “any AI-generated submissions must be verified with meaningful human control.” Alberta, notably, stops short of requiring a formal AI-use disclosure the way the Federal Court and some law societies do — but the verification expectation is constant across every Canadian source that addresses this, even where disclosure is not.
CREA's own AI guidance applies the same logic to real estate: “the adoption of AI does not alleviate the professional responsibilities of REALTORS®”, who must “remain fully accountable for the information, advice and services they provide to clients.” The pattern across courts and CREA alike is the same — the tool can draft, extract or suggest, but a person checks the result and owns what happens next.
An agent uses an AI tool to draft a comparative market analysis and a suggested list price from six comparable sales. Before presenting it to the seller, the agent checks each comparable against the actual MLS record, drops one the tool picked that turns out to be a non-arm's-length sale, and adjusts the recommended price. The AI proposed a number; the licensed individual is the one who verified it, and the one whose name is on the listing agreement built from it.
See also: Hallucination in an AI draft · Grounding an AI answer in your own files.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether it's worth building for your brokerage.
