Speaking as a technical consultee (land contamination) applications I don't think AI will be able to differentiate for technical submisisons that support the application until its at the stage of replacing all jobs.
Submissions often acheive validation erroneously through no fault of our validation team, who are very good at checking, but because the developers either don't click 'yes' on any of the contamination questions or they supply a irrelevant / poor report. They essentially bypass the system. When I've asked the developer its often because the land has been remediated (they don't realise that remediation is totally different to being 'cleaned up'), or because the industrial use is still there, or they simply judged it wasn't. A good validation team, will always be as good or better than AI, as its the otherwise irrelevant things that trigger alarm bells to consider an application further and it currently needs a person to notice those.
Whilst technical submissions are problematic to screen, regarding the nformation required at validation for land condition we liked Plymouths guidance leaflet, so asked and adapted it to our local circumstances with its tables to expain to applicants what submisisons were required. We still receive reports written for other subject areas, but at least its a step in the right direction. I think the change been helpful, or at least gave us something to provide .
