Verify facts, sources and calculations
Identify every factual claim, name, date, quotation and number that matters. Check it against an authoritative source rather than asking the same tool whether it is correct. Open cited links and confirm that they exist, support the claim and apply to the relevant place and time. Recalculate figures with an appropriate method or system.
Distinguish verified information from assumptions and generated suggestions. If a source cannot be checked, remove the claim, label the uncertainty or return to a qualified colleague. High-stakes legal, financial, medical, safety or employment decisions require the organisation’s established expert review, not this checklist alone.
- Names, dates, figures and quotations verified
- Sources opened and matched to each claim
- Calculations independently checked
- Uncertainty clearly removed or labelled
Check completeness, fit and potential harm
Compare the output with the original task. Has it answered every part, followed the requested format and preserved important constraints? Look for missing exceptions, overconfident language and plausible additions that were never supplied. Ensure the tone suits the audience and does not misrepresent the company’s position.
Review for stereotypes, unfair assumptions and unequal treatment, especially when content concerns people. Confirm that the prompt and output contain no information that should not be in the chosen tool or destination. A polished answer should still be rejected when the task was inappropriate for AI or the evidence is insufficient.
- All requirements and constraints addressed
- Audience, tone and company position appropriate
- Bias and harmful assumptions considered
- Confidentiality and permitted-use boundary respected
Assign approval and keep the necessary record
Name the person who can approve the output for its intended use. The reviewer needs enough subject knowledge and authority to make that decision. Editing style is not the same as checking substance. If several people review, specify who resolves disagreement and gives final approval.
Keep a proportionate record of source material, significant corrections and approval where the work process requires it. Reusable workflows should state their permitted inputs, review steps and expiry or review date. Tools and business conditions change, so a prompt that worked once is not automatically an approved process forever.
- Qualified reviewer named for the use case
- Substantive corrections completed
- Required evidence and approval recorded
- Reusable workflow assigned an owner and review date
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
Can the AI review its own output?
It can help identify possible gaps, but it cannot provide independent verification. A responsible person must check important claims against appropriate sources and decide whether the work is fit for use.
Does every output need the same review?
No. Match the review to consequence, audience and reversibility. A private brainstorming list needs less control than customer advice, a calculation or a decision affecting a person.
Who is accountable for AI-assisted work?
Your organisation should name the person or role responsible for the final use. The tool does not accept professional or managerial accountability.