Guided review form · About 10 minutes
Check an AI-written results summary
Compare an overstated pilot summary with three source notes. Enter supported findings in plain fields and download a checked evidence handoff.
For team leads and coordinators reviewing a draft without coding.
The request
A draft says a pilot improved accuracy and customer satisfaction and cut handling time in half. Read the provided notes and decide which facts can actually be reported. You do not need an AI account or JSON syntax.
Work through it
- Read the three fictional source notes. Separate measured results from claims of improvement.
- Enter the accuracy, median handling time, satisfaction status and supporting source IDs in the guided fields.
- Check the review and download the result and handoff report. Use the checklist to explain claims you removed.
Check before you hand it over
- A measured value does not establish improvement without a comparison baseline.
- Not measured is different from zero or unchanged.
- A polished sentence is not evidence; each reported fact needs a supporting note.
Included source material
3 original fictional source records. Three readable notes and an overstated draft. Your browser keeps your work on this device.
Read the output requirements
- Return accuracy_percent (number), median_minutes (number), satisfaction_status (string), source_ids (array).
- Use the fixed source IDs. Array order follows the contract.
- Do not invent unsupported values. Missing evidence must remain unknown.
Related learning
These sources cover related skills. Our task data and materials are original; the providers are not affiliated with this workbench.
- Microsoft: Validate Copilot output before you act on it
Guidance to check source support, important facts, missing context and alternate conditions. This independent exercise uses a fixed fictional draft; it does not certify arbitrary AI output.