How to Review AI-Generated Client Work Before Delivery

← All SoloHatch guides

SOLOHATCH FIELD GUIDE · SOLO WORKFLOWS

Review AI-generated client work against the agreed brief, the underlying evidence and the actual file you plan to send. Correct what you can verify, identify what needs a client decision, and hold delivery when an unresolved issue affects the promised result.

A draft can read smoothly while missing a required section or adding an unsupported claim. NIST’s Generative AI Profile, section 2.2, describes the risk of AI output presenting incorrect content confidently or contradicting its inputs. The checks below help you record what you have verified and what remains unresolved.

Start with a short definition of “ready to send”

Open the latest agreed brief beside the draft. Write the deliverable, intended reader, required components and acceptance conditions in a few lines. Include the source version: an old brief can produce a careful review of the wrong task.

For example, “one workshop information sheet and one registration email, using the approved session details, with an editable document and a PDF” is more useful than “check the workshop copy.” If those boundaries are unclear, use the project scope template to establish them before polishing the draft.

Choose checks that could change whether the client can use the result. For copy, these include facts and the requested message. For a spreadsheet, include formulas, units and totals. For a workflow, include missing inputs, decision points and what happens when a step fails. Do not make spelling the only test of completion.

Separate verified facts, reasonable suggestions and missing information

Read once for completeness, then check claims against evidence. Keep these decisions separate:

• Verified fact: find the supporting client input or primary source and check that it says what the draft claims.
• Suggestion: label an idea as a proposed choice rather than quietly turning it into a client policy or commitment.
• Missing information: name the unanswered question and who can resolve it. Do not replace a missing answer with a plausible sentence.

Open important links and cited sources. A real source may still be irrelevant, outdated for the claim or narrower than the wording. Asking an AI to confirm its own draft can help produce a list of things to inspect; it does not replace checking the underlying evidence.

Recalculate quantities from the inputs. Check dates, currencies, units and which period a number describes. When you correct a repeated fact, search the whole deliverable for other occurrences, including headings, captions and the accompanying email.

Worked example: a workshop information pack

Illustrative example: a solo copywriter is preparing a fictional workshop information sheet and registration email. The approved brief specifies four sessions, twelve places per session, two hours per session, materials included and no lunch. The client has not yet approved the final booking link. These are invented inputs for demonstrating the review.

The pack is not ready for public use simply because two errors have been corrected. The missing email and booking destination remain open. It may be useful to send a clearly labelled draft for those decisions, but that is a different delivery state from “ready to publish.”

Check the final file, not only the working draft

After corrections, export or assemble the version you intend to send and open it yourself. Check that the right version, complete content and usable format survived that step.

• Compare the files with the promised deliverables and required sections.
• Check page breaks, table columns, headings and any text that might have been cut off.
• Click important links in the exported file; inspect the destination as well as the visible label.
• Check that examples, estimates and unapproved choices retain their labels.
• Remove leftover placeholders, prompt text and internal notes. Check names and identifying details against the intended recipient.
• Confirm the file opens and is editable where editability was promised.

If the client will read a web page or email on a phone, inspect that final presentation at a narrow width too. Record what you actually checked. Opening a document on one screen does not establish that every device or application will display it correctly.

Copy this compact review record

Keep one record for the version being reviewed. Recheck a corrected item before closing it; “changed” and “verified” describe different steps.

Deliverable and version:
Approved brief / input version:
Intended use and recipient:
Required components:

Item checked:
Evidence used:
Finding:
Correction or question:
Owner of unresolved decision:
Recheck result and date:

Final state: Ready / Needs work / Blocked
Open issues and effect on use:
Files included:
Next action and owner:

Make the delivery state explicit

Use Ready when the required checks for this deliverable have passed and no unresolved issue prevents its intended use. Use Needs work when you can make the correction yourself. Use Blocked when an input or decision you do not control is necessary.

For the fictional pack, a useful message is: “The capacity and inclusions are corrected. The registration email still needs its final review, and I need the approved booking URL before I can mark the pack ready for publication. Please confirm the destination.” It tells the client what is complete and exactly what happens next.

Once the work is ready, use the client handoff checklist to package the final files and outstanding responsibilities. Keep the review record with your project notes so the next revision starts from the right version. Find related planning and delivery resources in Solo Workflows or the Guides library.

This guide was developed with AI assistance for SoloHatch, operated by My Target Limited. Examples are illustrative, and planning templates should be adapted to your project. About SoloHatch.