The review gate is a human–machine interface, and its design determines whether the system is usable. A reviewer who sees a diff with no context cannot assess whether the migration is correct. A reviewer who has to dig into Mulesoft internals to understand the generated code will burn time that the system was supposed to save.
The review interface must show, per flagged policy: the source policy in its original format, the generated Mulesoft equivalent with inline annotations, the confidence score and the specific reason it was flagged, and a link to the relevant documentation. The reviewer's action — approve, correct, reject — must be a single operation. Correction must be in-line, not a round-trip to an external tool.
This UX is an open design question: it depends on whether the primary interaction modality is a CLI, a web UI, or an IDE plugin. The architecture supports all three, but the review experience quality varies significantly. This should be resolved before the first migration sprint begins.