The Hidden Killer of Your “Smart” FlowsYour AI flow didn’t fail because of AI. It failed because it trusted you.That’s the part nobody wants to hear. You built an automation, called it “smart,” and then fed it half-baked data from a form someone filled out on a Friday afternoon. You assumed automation meant reliability—when in reality, automation just amplifies your errors faster and with more confidence than any intern ever could.Let me translate that into business language: your Copilot Studio flow didn’t crumble because Microsoft messed up. It crumbled because bad input data got treated like gospel truth. A missing field here, a mistyped email there—and suddenly your Dataverse tables look like they were compiled by toddlers. The AI didn’t misbehave. It did exactly what you told it to, exactly wrong.So what’s missing? Governance. Real validation. The moment where a human stops the automation long enough to confirm reality before the bots sprint ahead. That’s where the Request for Information, or RFI, action steps in. Think of it as the “Human Firewall.” It doesn’t let garbage data detonate your automation. It quarantines it, forces human review, and only then lets the flow continue.By the end of this, you’ll know why data mismatches, null loops, and nonsensical AI actions keep happening—and how one little compliance mechanism eliminates all three. Spoiler: the problem isn’t that your flows are too automated. It’s that they’re not governed enough.Section 1: The Dirty Secret of AI AutomationAI loves precision. Users love chaos. That’s the great governance blind spot of enterprise automation. Every Copilot Studio enthusiast believes their flows are bulletproof because “the AI handles it.” Well, the truth? The AI handles whatever you feed it—good or bad—without judgment. It’s obedient, not intelligent. It doesn’t ask, “Are we sure this visitor has safety clearance for the lab?” It just books the meeting, updates the record, and prays the legal team never finds out.Picture a flow built to manage facility access requests. It takes form responses from employees or external visitors and adds them to a Dataverse table. In your head, it’s clean. In reality, someone leaves the “Purpose of Visit” field blank or types “meeting.” That’s not a purpose; that’s a shrug. But your automation reads it as valid and happily forwards it to security. Congratulations—you’ve now approved an unknown person to walk into a restricted building “for meeting.” When the audit team reviews that, they’ll label your flow a compliance hazard, not a technical marvel.This is how most AI-driven workflows fail: not through logic errors, but through blind trust in human input. The automation assumes structure where there’s none. It consumes statements instead of facts. It doesn’t check validity because you never told it to. And when that flawed data propagates downstream—into Dataverse, Power BI dashboards, or even your HR system—it infects every subsequent record. What started as convenience turns into systemic corruption.Governance teams call this the “data reliability gap.” Every automated decision should trace back to verified input. Without that checkpoint, you’re not automating; you’re accelerating mistakes. The irony is, most people design flows to remove human friction, when the smarter move is to strategically add it back in the right place.So Microsoft finally decided to make your flows less gullible. The Request for Information action is their way of injecting a sanity check into an otherwise naïve system. It pauses execution midstream and says, “Hold on—a human needs to confirm this before we continue.” That waiting moment is not inefficiency; it’s governance discipline in action.When you think of it that way, automation without validation isn’t progress—it’s policy violation with a glittery user interface. Every unverified field, every empty dropdown, every text box treated as truth is a potential breach of compliance. The RFI feature exists precisely to convert chaos back into order, one Outlook form at a time.And once you’ve watched one bad flow corrupt your data lake, you’ll appreciate that moment of pause. Because the alternative isn’t faster automation—it’s faster disaster.Section 2: Enter RFI — The Human in the LoopThe Request for Information action—RFI for short—is the moment your automation learns humility. It’s the Copilot Studio equivalent of raising its digital hand and saying, “Wait, I need a human before I ruin everything.” And yes, that’s precisely what it does. It’s not just a form filler or a glorified prompt; it’s a compliance-grade checkpoint that holds the line between clean, validated data and pure chaos.Here’s what it really is. The RFI action sits inside your Agent Flow and halts its progress until someone—an actual person—responds to an Outlook Actionable Message. That message isn’t a passive notification. It’s an embedded mini-form right inside Outlook, designed with mandatory fields that the recipient must complete before the flow proceeds. While they’re pondering their answers, your automation just sits there, suspended midstream like a well-trained butler waiting for instructions. Only when the fields are filled—every required value provided, every checkbox ticked—does the flow continue.Think of it as “Conditional Access” for workflows. You wouldn’t let an unverified machine connect to your corporate network, so why let unverified data enter your Dataverse table? RFI enforces exactly that kind of stoppage. Execution pauses until reality aligns with policy. And here’s the clever twist—it’s synchronous. That means the flow waits for the truth; it doesn’t guess, it doesn’t infer, it just stands by until it’s told, definitively, “This data is good to go.”Now, it’s tempting to assume your AI prompts already handle this. After all, prompts sound intelligent—they validate details, summarize content, even detect missing fields. But prompts only interpret. They think the information makes sense. They lack authority. RFIs confirm. They transform “looks fine” into “officially verified.” Prompts approximate comprehension; RFIs enforce compliance. When combined, one checks logic, the other checks accountability.Here’s a real-world case. A facility flow processing visitor access requests used an AI prompt to validate entries from Microsoft Forms. If the visitor planned to access a lab, the AI checked for safety information—type of work, clearance, and protective gear. When a user skipped that section, the prompt flagged it as incomplete. Enter RFI. The flow automatically generated a message to the submitter: “Please provide safety details before access approval.” The recipient opened the actionable message in Outlook, input the required information, and hit Submit. Only then did the agent flow proceed—updating the Dataverse record, marking the pass as Valid, and keeping your auditors blissfully silent.And yes, multiple users can be assigned. The first responder wins. Subsequent attempts are logged as redundant, ensuring timestamp-based reliability and avoiding contradictory edits. Every RFI submission leaves a forensically neat trail—who responded, when, what they entered. That’s gold for governance teams obsessed with traceability.RFIs don’t just fix broken data; they fix broken accountability. They make sure no one can shrug and say, “Oh, the system did it.” Because if the data went through an RFI gate, someone, somewhere, had to click Submit with their name on it. It’s digital responsibility at the form level.That’s how you reinsert accountability into automation—deliberately, audibly, proudly. RFI isn’t slowing you down; it’s preventing your flow from sprinting into a compliance wall. And now that you know what it does, let’s talk about why this little pause is the single most important act of governance you’ll ever add to an automation.Section 3: Why Governance Starts with Human ValidationAutomation was never supposed to remove humans from the loop; it was supposed to remove their laziness from the loop. Yet somehow, in the race to automate everything, we decided that validation was optional. It isn’t. Every automation worth trusting includes a human confirmation point—the moment where someone raises a finger and says, “Yes, that’s accurate.” Otherwise, you’re not building a business process; you’re building a rumor mill with machine efficiency.Governance people understand this instinctively, because every compliance framework—ISO, SOC, GDPR, pick your favorite acronym—revolves around traceable decision points. “Who approved what?” “When was it done?” “Under what data conditions?” These aren’t bureaucratic questions; they’re the scaffolding of defensible automation. An RFI action inserts those answerable moments right into your flow. Without it, your audit report reads like a mystery novel: full of events, but no idea who actually caused them.To see the difference, think of an RFI as a digital sign‑off sheet embedded in Outlook. The flow stops until the human signature arrives—electronically, automatically, and logged. When the user taps Submit, the record contains their response, their email identifier, and their timestamp. That means every consequential automation step—from approving visitor access to posting transactions—links back to a validated human action. You can trace data lineage right down to the person stubborn enough to leave a field blank. In a compliance audit, that’s not just helpful; it’s survival.Now, let’s talk reliability. Automation suffers from what engineers call “silent failure”—things that break invisibly. A value goes missing, a condition misfires, and nobody notices until the output looks absurd. RFIs kill silence. They introduce an audible checkpoint. A missing field doesn’t slip through; it halts the procession. No skipped forms, no wildcard inputs. The human gets an actionable message demanding attention before the machine proceeds. Governance professionals call that preventive control.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/m365-show-modern-work-security-and-productivity-with-microsoft-365--6704921/support.
Follow us on:
LInkedIn
Substack
