Concrete workplace scenario
AI drafts a renewal email with discount language, contract terms, and account-risk wording. The draft looks ready to send.
The trap is that different parts need different reviewers. “Looks ready” is not the same as “cleared to send.”
Worked answer
Bad example first: polished wording hides missing review points
Weak example
“The draft looks good. Send it to the customer.”
What goes wrong
The draft contains discount language, contract terms, and account-risk wording, but has no reviewer named.
Work-ready version: name who checks what and when
What is checked
Discount, terms, risk claim, or customer promise.
Who checks it
Sales, legal, account owner, support lead, or manager.
When it stops
Before send, before approval, before promise, or before escalation.
Quick decision check
The who-checks-what-when rule
A review point is useful only when it says what is checked, who checks it, and when the work pauses.
What
Which part is risky?
Who
Which owner reviews it?
When
Where does the workflow pause?
Review-point trace
This is the small visible work change from today. Keep it shallow, real, and reusable tomorrow.
Before / after: what changed in your work?
Use this small contrast to see what changed today. The goal is not more paperwork; it is a clearer AI-in-workflow move.
Before learning
After learning
What AI-in-workflow means today
Build today's artifact rows
Complete three short fill-ins. Keep one real work item per row, and change the sample wording so it fits your work.
| No. | Work item | AI role / prompt case | Risk or evidence | Human owner / reader | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| 3 |
Repair one weak row
Use this pass to find the row that could confuse someone, create unsafe AI use, or fail as workplace evidence before you export.
Repair example
Weak row: AI draft looks good, send renewal email.
Repair move: Name what is reviewed, who reviews it, and when the work pauses.
Better row: Discount line reviewed by sales owner before send; contract wording reviewed by legal before any customer promise.
Choose the row you would be comfortable showing to a manager. It should have a clear task, boundary, owner, and next action.
Choose the row most likely to fail, confuse someone, expose sensitive input, or need review.
Write the exact change. Sentence starter: The weak row is weak because ___. I will repair it by adding ___ before using AI.
Pass / fix / stop standard
Do not move AI output from draft to action without a named review point for the risky step.
Export artifact
This file is today’s work receipt. It should show what changed in your work habit, not just that you filled a table.
Before you export
- Does the row say what must be reviewed?
- Does it name the reviewer?
- Does it say when the workflow pauses?
What this artifact proves: This file proves you know where an AI draft must pause for human review before action.
Weak export: vague rows, no owner, no repair note, or no next-use line.
Good export: one clear work case, one boundary/rule, one repair note, and one tomorrow-use or manager-use line.
Click Generate Markdown to create human_review_point_map.md.