None of our processes have a 0% false positive rate. Not tickets written by humans, not criminal charges filed by humans, not court cases tried in front of a jury. So maybe a phrase would be "unrealistic expectations".
But what we should expect (and demand) is that the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal.
> the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal.
I would actually ask that the errors be easier to correct, not just no harder.
Even if the error rate is lower, automated systems will detect a larger number of errors and therefore are likely to create a larger number of false positives. If we're going to automate the creation of false positives we need to equivalently automate their correction.
But what we should expect (and demand) is that the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal.