Is review the bottleneck for AI-generated work?

There's a changing dynamic with teams that are embracing AI adoption. You roll out an AI tool that drafts reports by combing through documents and dashboards. Work that used to take a team days now arrives in minutes. People still edit before sending anything for review, but the first drafts are cleaner. There are fewer missing fields and fewer supporting files to chase down. Then the cross-team review queue gets longer. The tool is doing what it was supposed to do. It turns out some of the delay in the old workflow was acting as a release valve. Drafting was slow, so work trickled into review at a pace reviewers could absorb. Now finished-looking work reaches review faster, and that step didn't speed up. Approval doesn't scale the way drafting does, because it isn't about producing the artifact. It's about someone being willing to stand behind it. Manufacturing solved a version of this decades ago. In Goldratt's Theory of Constraints (The Goal, 1984), the bottleneck sets the pace of the whole system. Push work in faster than the constraint can absorb it and throughput doesn't rise; the backlog just moves to a different station. His fix was drum-buffer-rope: the bottleneck is the drum that sets the beat, the buffer keeps it fed, and the rope ties the release of new work to the bottleneck's pace. AI cuts the rope. It removes the friction that was accidentally pacing the system without touching the constraint. The bottleneck was never drafting. It's the moment when someone has to stand behind the result. Deploy AI upstream of your real constraint and you don't get more throughput. You get a bigger pile in front of the approver. Anyone seeing this in their org?