Answer
Who checks AI output before it goes to a client?
In most small firms, whoever generated the draft. That is the weak point: the person best placed to miss something is the person checking it. A workflow can declare the review step in advance, so the reviewer is decided by the firm rather than by whoever happened to be at the keyboard.
The default nobody chose
When a tool is a blank prompt box, the person driving it is also the person approving the result. Nobody decided that. It is just what happens when the tool has no opinion about who signs things off.
Most firms would not run any other important process that way, and would say so if you asked.
What a declared review step changes
Where a workflow declares a review step, the result stops and waits for a named person. They see the actual output and can accept, edit or reject it before it becomes work that goes out.
Because it is declared in the workflow rather than agreed informally, it survives a busy week and it survives the person who set it up leaving.
Where it does not apply, stated plainly
Review is per-workflow, not a blanket property of the product. Some simpler paths — a summary, a conversation — do not require an approval step today, and describing the product as though every path had one would be wrong.
So the honest version is: the workflows that need a human gate can have one declared, and you should ask which of yours do.
FlowClave is a software workflow. This is not legal, privacy or compliance advice, and it does not make a firm compliant with anything. Your firm remains responsible for its own obligations.