Here is a problem that only exists once AI is genuinely good: how do you pay the human who reviews its output?
Per word is wrong — most words needed no work at all. Per hour is unverifiable. Per job is a guess. Every LSP running an AI-first workflow is negotiating this in spreadsheets right now, and the numbers in those spreadsheets are invented.
Measure the intervention, not the volume
Fily now reports, for every reviewer and every job: how many segments they actually touched, how many words changed — measured as a real diff, not a flag — and an estimate of time spent, derived from grouping their activity into working sessions.
The critical rule: work the AI did is not billable human work. When our pipeline auto-corrects a glossary term, that correction does not land in anyone's timesheet. Only decisions a person actually made are counted. Automated fixes are reported separately, so you can see both without confusing one for the other.
Built for the day you have to pay someone
- A Review effort page with totals per reviewer, expandable job by job.
- CSV export — one row per reviewer and per job, shaped for payroll.
- A printable effort report showing the before and after of every human change: the evidence behind the invoice, in your branding.
- Scoped by project, job, reviewer, or period — whatever your billing cycle looks like.
Two things we will say plainly
Time is estimated from activity patterns, not measured with a stopwatch — it is a defensible basis for payment, not a surveillance tool, and we would rather describe it accurately than oversell it. And review activity recorded before we started attributing authorship shows up as unattributed rather than assigned to someone: we are not going to invent an author on a record that will be used to pay a person.
If you run reviewers on top of AI output, this is the number your margin depends on. Ask your Account Manager to walk through your last cycle.
Want this in your workflow? Try Fily with one file — no card, no demo form.