AI-assisted content needs an editor who can distinguish a fluent passage from a supported one. A draft may be readable and still contain an invented detail, a source that says something different or a conclusion that goes beyond the available evidence. The review should make those issues visible before the piece reaches a publishing system.
Start with the assignment, not the tool. The editor needs the reader, purpose, approved source material and acceptance criteria. Those define the work being reviewed. Knowing that AI helped with an outline or a paragraph can inform the checks, but the final responsibility still belongs to the team putting its name on the publication.
This process is designed for ordinary commercial editorial work. It uses an interview-led article as the running example: a draft explaining how a company's new service works for existing customers. The aim is to give the reviewer a clear sequence, from checking the assignment to approving a specific final version.
Keep the evidence beside the draft
Ask the creator to supply the source material used for factual statements. That may include interview notes, approved product documentation and primary external references. A list of links alone is incomplete if the reviewer cannot tell which claim each source supports. Connect the important claims to the relevant passage or record.
The NIST Generative AI Profile describes confabulation as confidently presented erroneous or false content. That risk makes source checking a separate editorial task. Readability does not establish that a claim is true, and a plausible citation does not establish that the cited page supports it.
For the service article, the reviewer might check an onboarding sequence against the current service document and confirm a quoted explanation against the interview notes. If the material is unavailable, mark the statement as unresolved. The creator can obtain the evidence, rewrite the sentence to reflect what is known or remove it.
Review the assignment before the sentences
Read the brief and draft once for purpose. Does the piece answer the reader's actual question? Does it explain the service at the level an existing customer needs? A draft can satisfy every local grammar preference while missing the assignment. Resolve that structural problem before polishing individual lines.
Identify where the article changes direction. An explanatory piece may turn into a sales pitch halfway through, or a short process guide may spend most of its space on general industry commentary. Mark the point where the reader's task disappears and ask for a revision that restores it.
The Australian Government Style Manual connects content design with evidence about users. An editor can apply that principle by checking the draft against the reader described in the brief. Keep the review focused on what this particular person needs to understand or decide.
Check claims in a deliberate pass
Separate factual review from style review. Work through names, dates, numbers, quotations, product capabilities and causal statements. For each important claim, ask what supports it and whether the wording matches the evidence. “The service includes an assessment” is different from “the assessment prevents delays.” The second statement needs a basis for the claimed result.
Open the original source rather than relying on a generated summary. Confirm that the material is current enough for the claim and applies to the situation being described. A source about one product version or market should not silently support a broad statement about every version or customer.
Check citations as content too. Does the page exist? Is it the original source? Does the specific passage support the sentence? Record a short note when a claim needs interpretation from a subject expert. Another language model may help locate a passage, but it cannot replace checking the source itself.
Preserve the meaning of interviews
Generated rewrites can smooth a quotation into something the speaker did not say. Compare direct quotes with the recording or approved notes. If a line has been substantially rewritten, present it as a supported paraphrase rather than placing the new wording inside quotation marks.
Review the surrounding context. A service lead might describe what happens in a particular case, while the draft turns it into a universal process. Ask whether the interview supports that scope. Where a specialist needs to clarify a detail, send a specific question with the relevant sentence and explain the uncertainty.
Keep a record of approved changes. The editor should be able to distinguish a correction supplied by the speaker from a stylistic suggestion made during review. That record helps the final approver understand why the text changed and keeps the next revision from accidentally restoring an earlier error.
Look for empty confidence
After the evidence pass, read for language that sounds definite while saying little. Phrases about transforming an industry can conceal a missing explanation of what the service actually does. Replace them with a process, an example or a direct statement supported by the brief.
Check paragraph openings and endings. If several paragraphs repeat the same broad point, choose the clearest one and use the space to answer an unresolved reader question. A longer draft is not necessarily a more complete draft. The useful test is whether each paragraph adds a fact, explanation or decision.
Read the article aloud if its rhythm feels mechanical. Varying sentence length can help, but do not add personal anecdotes to make it sound human. The team's actual evidence and editorial choices are enough to give the piece a specific voice.
Confirm the material is appropriate to publish
Check the draft against the team's permissions and handling rules. An internal planning note may support an interview question while remaining unsuitable for publication. A customer name, screenshot or quotation may need an explicit approval. Flag those items where they appear so they cannot disappear into a general comment thread.
Keep review notes out of the publication file. Resolve placeholders, unanswered questions, internal comments and temporary instructions. Check image captions, alt text, headings and metadata as part of the same release. Errors can survive in those smaller fields after the main article has been carefully edited.
Assign each unresolved item to a person. “Needs checking” is a status, not an owner. Name who will obtain the answer and what evidence will close it. A simple list with the sentence, the question and the responsible person can keep a review moving without hiding uncertainty.
Approve a version, then preserve it
The final approver should see the exact version intended for publication and a record of any remaining conditions. Approval of an earlier draft does not automatically cover later substantive changes. If a factual correction arrives after sign-off, the editor should decide whether the revised passage needs another review.
Store the final asset and its supporting records in the team's normal system. Keep the approved version distinguishable from working drafts, and identify who owns corrections after publication. If an error is found later, the team can trace the statement, assess the impact and publish a correction through a known process.
For a ContentShop operation, this is a practical editorial promise to build around: every finished piece has a brief, inspectable evidence and a person who accepts responsibility for release. Begin with one checklist on one assignment. The next improvement should come from the first real gap that checklist exposes.