Before the session
Send learners the workshop link. Ask them to bring a laptop and access to an approved AI assistant, or pair them with someone who has access. Use the fictional notes for a consistent exercise. Prepare a shared timer and a place to record questions. No live session is scheduled or booked by this website.
Learning outcomes
- Choose a low-risk task with a measurable result.
- Write a brief with task, audience, evidence, constraints, and format.
- Identify invented or unsupported details.
- Document a repeatable workflow with human review.
0–10 minutes · Pick one useful task
Choose a task you repeat and understand well. For this workshop, use our fictional meeting notes or a low-risk example you are permitted to share. Your aim is a reliable result you can inspect, not a fully automated system.
Ask the group: Write your task, its audience, and what a good result looks like.
Facilitator cue: Record your normal completion time, including checking and revisions. If you have no baseline, leave it unknown and measure it later.
10–20 minutes · Understand what AI needs
An AI assistant generates outputs from its training and the context available to it. It may produce plausible but unsupported details. Supplying notes does not guarantee a faithful summary: your instructions and review still matter.
Ask the group: Which facts must the output preserve? What should it do when something is missing?
Facilitator cue: In the sample, Friday is a proposed launch date. Sam has not committed to a deadline. The legal follow-up has no owner.
20–35 minutes · Write a useful brief
Give the assistant a task, audience, source, constraints, and output format. Use the sample instruction below, then adapt it. Open your approved AI tool separately; this workshop does not send your notes to an AI service.
Ask the group: Write your instruction. Include the review rules.
Facilitator cue: Copy your instruction and the sample notes into an approved AI tool. If you do not have a tool, practice by creating the table manually.
35–55 minutes · Make a first attempt
Run your brief with the sample notes. Keep the original output so you can compare it with your revised version. Watch for details the tool adds without evidence. A neat table is only useful if its contents are trustworthy.
Ask the group: Paste or summarize your first output.
Facilitator cue: Expected facts: onboarding checklist approved; Theo drafts the email by Wednesday; pilot limited to 20 customers; launch date and Sam’s review date unconfirmed; legal follow-up owner unassigned.
55–75 minutes · Check and improve
Compare every important claim against the source. Use the checklist below to review the result. If an item fails, make a specific revision to your instruction or output. An unchecked box is a useful signal to investigate, not a score to hide.
Ask the group: What was wrong or missing? What did you change?
Facilitator cue: A strong revision preserves uncertainty and includes the missing legal owner. Ask a colleague to review a consequential result before using it.
75–90 minutes · Keep what works
Try a second short example: “Nina will prepare the draft budget. No deadline was set. A $500 cap was suggested but not approved.” Your workflow should not convert the suggestion into a decision. Then document the recipe you can use next time.
Ask the group: Write your repeatable recipe: inputs, steps, review checks, and stop conditions.
Facilitator cue: Compare total time and quality with your baseline. Save your workbook, choose one task to repeat this week, and review the workflow after three uses.
Debrief and answer key
Ask participants to show one change they made and explain why. The checklist approval and 20-customer pilot are confirmed decisions. Theo owns the welcome-email draft due Wednesday. Sam’s review timing is unconfirmed. Friday is a proposal, not a launch commitment. Legal follow-up is unassigned. Thursday at 10 a.m. is the next meeting.
For the second example, Nina owns the draft budget, the due date is missing, and the $500 cap is unapproved. Learners should preserve all three facts.
Assess the work
Use four criteria: traceable evidence, preserved uncertainty, useful output structure, and a repeatable review process. Give specific feedback for each. A polished response with an invented deadline does not meet the evidence criterion. Let learners revise before presenting again.
Follow up after one week
Ask whether they reused the workflow, what changed, and whether total time or quality improved. Include review time. Collect examples only with permission, and keep any claims about results tied to the actual evidence.