Purpose
Use this lesson to make responsibility clear when AI output becomes real work. The aim is to produce work that a colleague can review and act on, not merely text that sounds convincing.
Lesson Explanation
Scenario: An AI prepares a draft policy update for legal and operations review.
Better instruction: Create a handoff checklist: draft owner, source documents reviewed, factual checks completed, legal reviewer, operations reviewer, final approver, and publication date.
AI output does not remove accountability. A handoff records who supplied inputs, what was checked, who approves, and which version is final. Use review roles that match the risk of the material, especially for policy, finance, legal, and public claims. The checklist names owners, evidence checked, reviewers, approver, and publication date.
Work in a short cycle: provide the relevant input, state the result and limits, inspect the draft against the acceptance criteria, then revise the instruction when a requirement is missing. Keep the final human decision with the person responsible for the work.
Practice Questions
-
An AI drafts a policy update, and it’s published without anyone tracking who reviewed it or when. What does this lesson say AI output does not remove?
View Answer
Accountability – a handoff needs to record who supplied inputs, what was checked, who approves, and which version is final.
-
What five elements does this lesson say a handoff record should include, at minimum?
View Answer
Draft owner, source documents reviewed, factual checks completed, reviewer(s), and final approver.
-
Write a handoff checklist instruction for an AI-drafted public statement, following this lesson’s guidance.
View Answer
Something like: “Create a handoff checklist: draft owner, source documents reviewed, factual checks completed, legal reviewer, communications reviewer, final approver, and publication date.”
-
A handoff checklist names a legal reviewer for a policy document but not a separate approver for final sign-off. What is missing, per this lesson?
View Answer
A final approver, distinct from the reviewer roles.
-
What does this lesson recommend matching review roles to?
View Answer
The risk of the material, especially for policy, finance, legal, and public claims.
-
A low-risk internal note and a public legal statement both go through the exact same lightweight review process with no distinction. What does this lesson suggest about this approach?
View Answer
Review roles should match the risk of the material – a public legal statement likely warrants more rigorous review than a low-risk internal note.
-
A completed handoff record names the draft owner, documents reviewed, factual checks completed, legal and operations reviewers, final approver, and publication date. What does this reflect?
View Answer
A complete handoff checklist following this lesson’s full guidance.
-
Why does this lesson say “AI output does not remove accountability”?
View Answer
Using AI to draft content doesn’t eliminate the need for human review, verification, and approval – those responsibilities remain with the people involved in the handoff process.
-
A financial report draft is handed off with a record of who wrote it and what was checked, but no name is recorded for who gave final approval. What is missing?
View Answer
A named final approver.
-
Why does this lesson specifically call out “policy, finance, legal, and public claims” as categories needing risk-matched review?
View Answer
These categories carry higher consequences if inaccurate or improperly reviewed, warranting more rigorous review roles than lower-stakes internal material.
-
A team creates a handoff checklist that varies in rigor depending on whether the content is an internal memo or a public regulatory filing. What principle does this reflect?
View Answer
Matching review roles to the risk of the material, as this lesson recommends.
-
A handoff record specifies which version of a document is the final one, alongside who approved it. Why might this specific detail matter, based on this lesson’s emphasis on accountability?
View Answer
Without a clearly identified final version, there could be confusion about which draft was actually approved and published, undermining the accountability the handoff record is meant to establish.