A review checklist for anything AI writes for you

The most important step in any AI workflow is the one that happens after the AI has finished: a person reading the output before it reaches a member. Everyone agrees with this in principle. In practice, review often shrinks to a quick skim, because the draft looks polished and you are busy. Polished is exactly the problem. AI output reads smoothly whether it is right or wrong, so a skim catches spelling slips and misses the errors that matter.

A short, consistent checklist fixes that. It turns review from a vague feeling of “looks fine” into a few specific questions you answer every time. This article gives you one you can adapt, whether you are checking an email, a lesson, a support reply or a social post.

Why a checklist beats a quick skim

Gary runs an education membership for new property investors. Early on, he approved an AI-assisted newsletter that read beautifully and contained a confident, wrong statement about how a common type of loan works. Several members replied to correct him. Nothing in the draft had looked wrong; he simply had not asked the right question of it.

A checklist gives you those questions in advance. It also makes review delegable: if an assistant or volunteer helps you, they can apply the same standard you would.

Accuracy: is it true?

Start here, because accuracy errors do the most damage and are the hardest to spot in fluent text.

• Facts and figures: is every number, date, name and statistic from a source you trust? If you cannot trace it, cut it.
• Quotes and sources: does each quoted person or cited source exist, and did they really say that?
• Your own details: are lesson titles, event dates, prices, level names and links correct? AI will happily invent these if you did not provide them.
• Instructions: if the piece tells members how to do something, do the steps actually work in that order?

Why AI makes things up explains the warning signs that deserve an extra look.

Fit: does it do the job?

A piece can be accurate and still wrong for the moment. Ask:

• Does it answer the question the member actually asked, or a similar, easier one?
• Is it pitched at the right level for this audience, neither patronizing nor too technical?
• Is the most important point near the top?
• Is there a clear next step, and is it the right one?
• Is it the right length for where it will appear?

Support replies especially need the first question. AI often answers the general version of a problem when the member described a specific one.

Voice and tone: does it sound like you?

Members notice when your emails suddenly sound like someone else. Read the piece aloud, or at least in your head in your own voice, and check for:

• Words you would never use, such as hype words or stiff corporate phrases.
• Over-enthusiasm: exclamation marks, superlatives, gushing openings.
• Generic filler sentences that say nothing specific about your membership.
• Tone that suits the situation: a complaint reply should be calm and direct, not bubbly.

If you correct the same things repeatedly, put them into your voice guide; teaching AI your brand voice with a style sheet shows how.

Safety: privacy, promises and sensitive topics

These checks protect members and your business:

• Privacy: does the piece reveal anything about a member that should not be shared, including details from an example you pasted in?
• Promises: does it commit you to refunds, results, response times or features you do not offer?
• Advice: does it stray into legal, medical, financial or other professional advice? Keep such content general, and check what applies with a qualified professional.
• Fairness: does it make assumptions about members' age, background, gender or ability?
• Rights: does it borrow anyone else's words, images or ideas too closely?
• Disclosure: if you have a policy on telling members when AI helped, does this piece follow it? See telling members when you use AI.

Let AI help with the review, but you decide

An assistant can act as a second pair of eyes, especially for flagging claims to check. Sunita, who runs a membership for home-educating parents, pastes drafts back in with this prompt before her own final read:

Review the draft below as a careful editor for [membership name], whose members are [describe members]. Do not rewrite it. Instead, list: every factual claim that should be checked against a source; anything that promises something to the reader; any sentence that could be read as professional advice; any wording that is vague, generic or overly enthusiastic; and anything that might not suit [describe the situation, for example a reply to an upset member]. Keep each point to one line. Draft: [paste the draft]

A good response is a short list she can act on, not a new version. She treats it as a set of pointers, not a verdict: the tool can miss things and flag non-problems, and the final call is always hers.

The checklist in short, and how to start

Copy this into your prompt library or next to your desk:

1. Every fact, name, date, number and link verified.
2. Answers the real question, at the right level, with one clear next step.
3. Sounds like you, with no hype or filler.
4. No private details, unapproved promises or professional advice.
5. Fair, original and in line with your disclosure policy.

Then put it to work:

• Use it on the next three AI-assisted pieces you publish, and note what it catches.
• Adjust it for your niche; a health or finance membership needs a stricter accuracy step.
• Share it with anyone who helps you, so everyone reviews to the same standard.

The checklist works just as well on writing you did yourself; a practical self-editing checklist is a good companion for everything else you publish.