Thanks so much for all the detail you've provided on your scenario, that really helps make it clear what you're trying to achieve!
Currently, it's only possible to require submission approval for Entity creation, not for Entity updates. The biggest reason we don't support approval/rejection of updates is because in many cases the order that updates need to be applied in matters. This is not the case for your scenario but it is a common case.
Can you tell us more about what happens in your workflow after the two fields are populated? Why is it important for those fields to be reviewed?
Choice filter to only include Entities of interest in follow-up
If it's because something about their presence or value determines whether the related Entity is eligible for a next step, you should be able to use form design to address the need.
For example, if you start your next step with a select_one_from_file patients.csv, you can add a choice filter of
pres_dose != '' and adm_dose != ''
so that only patients who have received those doses are shown.
Similarly, if you're only interested in patients with doses above a threshold of .6, you could use a choice_filter of
pres_dose > 0.6 and adm_dose > 0.6
Choice filter to only include reviewed Entities in follow-up
If you really need a human to review the values entered, you could add another Entity property to represent this requirement. For example, you could introduce a reviewer_initials property so that whoever reviews the updates can initial the Entity.
Then you have some options for how to capture those initials. You could have reviewers use Central to view Entity data from the table, edit an Entity, and add their initials. Alternately, you could have another form that only reviewers have access to that allows them to view and modify the does values and then enter their initials. You could use the existing property values as defaults or you may be interested in some of the ideas from this thread on presenting Entity property values.
Your other follow-up forms could hide Entities that don't yet have reviewer initials with a choice filter:
reviewer_initials != ''
Hopefully one of these two concepts is helpful to you. Consider providing more detail on what comes after the two initial follow-ups if you'd like other ideas.