Keep human judgment in the loop

“Please review” is only useful when the reviewer knows what to check and has the evidence to do it.

NIST's Generative AI Profile describes a risk in which generated content presents incorrect information confidently. Fluent wording is therefore not enough to establish accuracy. NIST: Generative AI Profile (opens in new tab).

Write the review brief first

Our suggested practice is to decide the checks before asking for the work. For meeting notes, name the checks explicitly: each action must be supported by a note; owners and dates must match the source; unresolved questions must stay unresolved.

Use the fictional Mira and Dev example. Mira commits to prepare an agenda. Dev suggests a speaker without a decision. A reviewer should reject any output that turns Dev's suggestion into an assigned invitation. The useful judgment is about meaning, not simply spelling.

Review information and actions separately

First, inspect the draft. Then decide whether any action should follow. Approving an action list does not automatically approve sending it to other people. Before a consequential action, check the exact content, destination, timing and any cost.

For a small practice exercise, keep the assistant limited to fictional information and drafts. In a real organization, agree access and retention rules with the responsible people before using business records. Permissions should match the task rather than everything an account could technically access.

Leave a useful record

Our suggested review note contains four things: the revision checked, the evidence used, the decision and any remaining conditions. “Approved after removing an unsupported deadline” is clearer than an unexplained green tick.

If the draft changes, inspect the changed version. If the source changes, identify which outputs rely on it. A previous approval is not evidence that a later version is correct.

These are practical learning prompts, not a guarantee of safety or a substitute for specialist review. Marking a draft reviewed should record who checked that revision and what they checked; it should not be mistaken for independent certification.