Verify an AI draft before it becomes a business decision

Separate writing quality from evidence quality

A fluent answer can still contain a wrong quotation, an outdated rule or a number copied from the wrong period. Review the underlying claims rather than deciding whether the paragraph sounds credible. Increase the review effort when a mistake would affect customers, money, employment or safety.

Build a small evidence ledger

For each material claim, record the proposed statement, source document, exact passage or cell, source date, reviewer and disposition: verified, corrected, unsupported or unresolved. "The assistant cited a website" is not verification. Open the source and check that it actually supports the specific claim, audience and timeframe.

Claim:
Source and date:
Supporting passage / cell:
Independent check:
Disposition and correction:
Reviewer and review date:

Worked example: supplier comparison

Supplier A's synthetic quote lists a USD 120 monthly licence and a separate USD 300 setup charge. Supplier B lists USD 145 monthly with setup included. An AI draft calls A the cheaper first-year option because its monthly price is lower.

Recompute the same scope: A costs 12 x 120 + 300 = USD 1,740 before tax; B costs 12 x 145 = USD 1,740 before tax. The annual totals tie. Neither quote establishes renewal prices, support hours or migration effort. Correct the price claim and list those unanswered questions instead of declaring a winner. Do not introduce a tax rate that the quotes do not establish.

Five review passes

1. Check names, dates, units, currencies and which version of each source was used.
2. Recalculate totals from original inputs, ideally in a spreadsheet or other deterministic tool.
3. Open every consequential reference. Check jurisdiction, effective date and any exceptions.
4. Look for omissions: cancellation costs, exclusions, counterexamples and missing denominators.
5. Have the responsible person approve external commitments. Keep unresolved items out of the final assertion.

For a short internal summary, a lightweight reviewer may be sufficient. For an employment, legal, medical or financial decision, use the appropriate qualified review and applicable organizational process. This checklist is not a substitute for that review.

Acceptance standard

The corrected supplier comparison must state the equal first-year totals, show the setup charge and distinguish unknown renewal costs from known introductory costs. A response that merely changes "cheaper" to "competitive" without checking the numbers still fails. Retain the evidence ledger with the final document so the next person can reproduce the conclusion.

Sources and review

Reviewed October 16, 2026. Supplier figures and review workflow are original EAIRI teaching examples. Broader risk-management reference: NIST AI Risk Management Framework.