Jev API human review fields
There is no documented needs_human_review: true on the evaluation response. You compute hold vs auto-act from confidence, Noul bands, and policy.
This page is for builders who searched an extra “endpoint” name while wiring Jev / System One. jev.pro is an independent unofficial field guide — not affiliated with TypeSafe AI. We do not sell or issue keys. Confirm first-party routes on docs.typesafe.ai/api.
The public API reference documents one evaluation route — POST https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone — plus GET /v1/models. This title is not a separate first-party URL in that reference. Treat the capability as something you implement around the official call.
Steps
- Define hold rules per action (illustrative floors in docs are not defaults).
- Enqueue a ticket with the decision trace.
- Show questions and top-2 probabilities — not a fake rationale (review templates).
- Capture override reason codes.
Map onto the official POST
Same POST. Your review record is your schema. Choice/Score answers include probabilities and confidence. Noul answers include noul only — do not read .confidence. Question ids key the maps; they are not sent to the model. Criteria are the explanation surface reviewers should see.
Pin jev-1.13.0 so a reviewer is not comparing two alias moves. jev-latest / jev-preview currently resolve there — confirm. Generating “Jev thought…” copy contradicts the product contract (no explanation generation). Re-asking Jev until it agrees with the reviewer is not proof. Schema-safe ≠ the reviewer should auto-approve.
Documented errors: 401, 422, 429, 529. Official SDKs retry 429/529. Vendor-claimed token price still applies when you re-evaluate after an override. This page is your fields, not a hosted TypeSafe HITL app.
When not to invent a review field
If every ticket is already human, you do not need a boolean from TypeSafe. If you want TypeSafe to push a Slack review card, that callback is not in the public reference we used.
Pitfalls
- Generating “Jev thought…” copy.
- Re-asking Jev until it agrees with the reviewer and calling that proof.
- Looking for
needs_human_reviewonanswers. - Hiding criteria from reviewers.
See also
- API hub — what the response actually contains
- Review templates — what to show humans
- Abstention — hold as a first-class exit
- Triage human handoff — queue design
FAQ
Is this a documented TypeSafe URL?
No.
Should reviewers see criteria?
Yes. Criteria are the explanation surface.
HITL product from TypeSafe?
This page is your fields, not a hosted review app.
Can I send a hold threshold in the request?
Not in the public body we read. Thresholds live in your code.
What this page does not claim
- Official TypeSafe status, logos, or support.
- That jev.pro sells, issues, or proxies API keys.
- Extra first-party HTTP routes beyond
POST /v1/systemoneandGET /v1/modelsunless the API reference lists them. - Invented latency SLOs, search volume, or unofficial prices. List price and rate limits are vendor claims — confirm on models.
- That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.
Disclaimer
This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai. Never treat jev.pro as TypeSafe official documentation. We do not sell, issue, or proxy API keys.