Original AI Teachers teaching guide · Written October 7, 2026. The examples below are fictional, not client testimonials or performance results.
Begin with the decision the work must support.
Before reviewing the language, write one sentence: “The reader needs this to decide or do ___.” For a campaign brief, that may be approving an audience and message. For a research summary, it may be choosing what to investigate next. For an onboarding email, it may be completing one action.
Now compare the draft with that sentence. A well-written paragraph that does not help the intended decision is still unfinished. Ask what can be removed, what is missing, and what must be checked before anyone acts on it.
1. Trace important claims to permitted evidence.
Highlight names, dates, numbers, quotations, customer statements, and product promises. For each, record the source that supports it. Open that source yourself and check that it says what the draft implies.
Do not treat a citation-shaped string or a confident explanation as verification. A source can exist without supporting the conclusion. Where evidence is missing, remove the claim, qualify it clearly, or mark it for verification.
Fictional example: Your notes say three interview participants had trouble with setup. A draft says “customers abandon the product because onboarding is confusing.” The draft broadened the sample, introduced abandonment, and asserted a cause. A safer finding is narrower: “Three participants described difficulty with setup; we have not established the effect on retention.”
2. Separate findings from interpretations.
Use three labels while reviewing: supported finding, interpretation, and unanswered question. A useful summary can contain all three. Trouble starts when an interpretation is written as a settled fact or an unanswered question is silently filled in.
Ask the assistant to identify the assumptions in its draft, then review that list yourself. The purpose is to make your own check more systematic, not to let the draft approve itself.
3. Restore missing business context.
Check audience, stage, scope, constraints, and the intended next step. An onboarding draft for a paying customer should not sound like a prospecting message. A campaign brief for one segment should not quietly expand to everyone who might buy.
Keep an “unknowns” section when information is genuinely missing. For example, “We still need the approved offer terms and launch date” is more useful than an invented deadline.
4. Check voice without adding false certainty.
Read the draft aloud. Replace vague praise and generic benefits with language you would use with this client. Tighten long introductions. Keep the words that help the reader understand the work.
Do not make the writing sound more confident than the evidence allows. “This will increase conversion” and “This is worth testing because…” are different claims. Editing for clarity should not turn a hypothesis into a promise.
5. Review permissions and sensitive details.
Check that the source material belongs in the tool and that the output belongs with the recipient. Remove internal notes, personal details, credentials, and information the recipient is not authorized to see.
When permission is unresolved, stop and use an approved route or a synthetic example. This checklist is a working aid, not legal advice or a substitute for your organization's data-use requirements.
6. Test whether the next person can use it.
Open every necessary link. Check the requested format. Confirm the next action, owner, and date only where these were actually agreed. For a message, follow the proposed call to action. For a brief, ask whether another person could begin without guessing what you meant.
A draft is not a sent message, a recommendation is not approval, and a payment is not a scheduled meeting. Preserve those distinctions in any workflow that touches customers.
A final send-or-revise check.
- Does the output answer the original task?
- Can important claims be traced to checked sources?
- Are assumptions and unknowns visible?
- Do the scope, voice, and next action fit the reader?
- Are permissions and recipient access appropriate?
- Has a responsible person approved the final version?
Use “revise” for a clear, fixable gap. Use “hold” when you lack necessary evidence or permission. Do not publish a confidence percentage as though it proves the work is ready.
Turn the review into a repeatable habit.
Save the checks that mattered for this task and test them on a fresh example. Record drafting effort, checking effort, and correction effort separately. Compare quality as well as time. A process that produces more editing is not automatically an improvement.
Start with the free Workflow Planner, read the campaign-brief example, or bring one scoped task to a $350 working session.