I want the help. I do not want to give away the decision.

An AI executive assistant should reduce the work of remembering, gathering, and preparing. It should not quietly take authority you never gave it.

This matters to me because “human in the loop” can sound reassuring without telling you very much. Which human? In which loop? Approving what, exactly?

Your approval has to mean something specific

I believe approval should apply to an exact version, action, and scope. If the work changes, the approval should not travel with it as though nothing happened.

After an action is taken, the system should return a receipt and help you compare what happened with what you intended. The assistant’s answer is not the evidence.

Draw the line between preparation and permission

An AI Executive Assistant Should Prepare Work, Not Quietly Approve It explains why useful preparation and consequential authority must remain different things.

What to Delegate to AI—and What to Keep gives you four questions for deciding what may be prepared, what may move within clear limits, and what should wait for you.

Give an AI Assistant Clear Approval Boundaries offers a five-line pattern for defining the scope, permitted actions, stop conditions, and evidence before the work begins.

Verify the Work, Not Just the Assistant’s Answer shows what to inspect before accepting “done” as the truth.

This is the line I want Orabuena to hold

Orabuena is in private research and product discovery. I am testing these principles with real solopreneurs. I am not claiming proven autonomy or general product availability.