A reviewer should be able to select an extracted field and see the passage that produced it. If the interface shows only a value and a confidence number, the reviewer still has to search the document manually. Start the design with that source-to-field relationship.
The Document Review Queue is an unimplemented blueprint. The diagram and downloadable wireframe describe a proposed interface, not a screenshot of delivered software. No review-speed or extraction-accuracy measurement has been collected.
Keep location information in the review record
Store the source document version with each extraction revision. For each field, preserve the raw extracted text and any page or region references supplied by the parser. The reviewer's edited value belongs in a separate field so the original proposal remains available.
Azure Document Intelligence documents text spans as references into extracted content, and bounding regions as locations tied to pages. Its response also describes page dimensions and coordinate units. A renderer needs those values to place an overlay correctly instead of assuming every document uses the same image scale. Analyze document response.
Treat these as adapter capabilities to verify. A parser that returns only plain text cannot support the same region highlighting without an additional mapping step. Mark such fields as having text-only evidence. The interface should never draw a precise box that the extraction output cannot justify.
Give the source and field different jobs
A useful proposed layout keeps the document on one side and the current field group on the other. Selecting a field moves the source view to its page, highlights the linked region and displays the raw text. Selecting the region should identify the corresponding field when that relationship is available.
| Review element | Proposed content | Reason to retain it |
|---|---|---|
| Source pane | Page, zoom controls and linked region | Inspect the original evidence |
| Field editor | Proposed value and correction | Make a deliberate change |
| Status text | Missing, invalid, uncertain or ready | Explain the next action |
| Change history | Previous value and editor | Review the correction |
| Approval record | Exact document and field revision | Reproduce the approved export |
Keep the selected field stable while the reviewer zooms. A page change should update the source view without silently selecting a different field. For long documents, provide a field list that shows which items still need attention and lets the operator return to the previous item.
Make uncertainty actionable
A low confidence value can be a reason to inspect a field, but the interface still needs to explain the relevant issue. Use specific messages such as missing source region, invalid date format or conflicting extracted values. Let the reviewer record that the source itself is ambiguous rather than forcing a guessed correction.
WCAG states that color cannot be the only means of communicating information. Pair colored markers with text or another visible distinction. Its error-identification guidance also requires a textual description when an input error is detected. Apply both rules to the proposed field list and editor. Use of color and error identification.
Preserve keyboard access to the source controls and field actions. WCAG's keyboard criterion requires functionality to be operable through a keyboard interface, subject to its stated exceptions. The acceptance review should cover selecting fields, reaching correction controls and approving a revision without requiring pointer-only region selection. Keyboard access.
Approve what the export will contain
The approval action should refer to the saved set of reviewed values. If an operator changes a value after approval, create a new revision and require another decision before exporting it. Keep the prior revision available according to the agreed retention policy.
Reprocessing needs the same discipline. A new extraction must not move the existing source highlight to a different document while preserving an old approval. Compare the document identifier and version before displaying previously reviewed values. When the source cannot be loaded, show the missing-evidence state and keep approval blocked under the proposed policy.
Download the source-linked review worksheet for an annotated text wireframe and proposed checks covering page rotation, missing regions and revision changes. Every case is Not run. Review it with actual redacted files before committing to parser capabilities or interface behavior.
The Document Review Queue blueprint can frame a custom build around one document family and one approved export. Bring representative page layouts and the field corrections your reviewers need to make.
