Build a human-review habit

Name the reviewer

The reviewer needs enough subject knowledge, access to the source and time to check the result. “Someone will look at it” is not a workable control. Give the reviewer authority to reject the output and return to the manual process.

Check five things before use

1. Facts: Can each factual statement be traced to the approved source? Verify names, dates, quantities and references.
2. Completeness: Are important exceptions, uncertainties or unresolved questions missing?
3. Meaning: Has a summary or rewrite changed the original intent or added a commitment?
4. Audience: Is the tone suitable, and is every detail appropriate for the people who will see it?
5. Action: Does the final output ask anyone to do something outside the agreed scope?

Use a review log

Record the type of problem, not just “bad answer”. Repeated missing dates call for a different response from invented policy. Track correction effort so a fast draft does not hide a slow review.

Example reference:
Source checked:
Incorrect or unsupported facts:
Missing information:
Changed meaning or commitments:
Sensitive content:
Corrections and time taken:
Approved / revise / reject:
Reviewer and date:

Decide when to stop

Pause if a reviewer cannot reliably verify the output, if confidential information appears unexpectedly, or if the task drifts into decisions outside the pilot. Record the issue and investigate before continuing.