article · sales

Check AI-generated commitments before you send a follow-up

Check follow-up commitments against meeting notes, reject invented prices and deadlines, and use an evidence table to preserve unresolved questions.

Author: Founder identity pending confirmation
Published: Pending first public release · Fact-check: Human review pending
beginner · check · Approximately 3 minutes to read
Evidence: editorial · Maintenance: current
Action authority: draft · Data: public
Approach:

The direct answer

Check every commitment against the original meeting notes before sending a follow-up. Confirm who agreed to do what, for whom, and by when. Missing dates and uncertain promises should remain missing or become questions for a person; they should not become fluent guesses.

Notes-to-draft evidence table

Synthetic meeting notes: “Alex will send the service outline. Client asked whether a Friday start is possible. Priya will check availability. No price agreed. Recipient address not confirmed.” These notes are invented teaching inputs.

A rejected draft and a bounded replacement

Rejected synthetic draft: “Your Friday start and discounted rate are confirmed. Alex will send everything tomorrow.” This converts a question into a commitment, invents a commercial term, and supplies a deadline that was never agreed.

Candidate for review: “Alex will send the service outline. Priya will check availability for the Friday start you asked about.” This preserves the distinction between a request and an agreement. It is still pending review: the recipient, the meaning of “Friday,” and any deadline must be confirmed before sending if they matter to the message.

Do not silently translate “Friday” into a calendar date. The meeting date, timezone, and speaker’s intended week may be unclear. Keep the original wording with a reviewer flag, or omit it until clarified.

Review in a fixed order

First confirm the source notes belong to the right meeting and version. Then verify recipient identity outside the model. Check each name, action, date, amount, scope statement, and attachment claim against the source. A statement that an attachment is included also requires checking the actual outgoing message.

Finally inspect tone and clarity. Style editing comes after factual review because a courteous false promise is still a false promise. Keep the evidence reference beside each extracted commitment so the reviewer does not have to hunt through unrelated notes.

Use three decisions: accept the supported statement, edit while preserving its meaning, or reject and ask for clarification. Record corrections that reveal a recurring extraction problem and add them to the test set.

Limits and non-example

A sentence can be supported by notes and still be wrong if the notes are incomplete or inaccurate. The reviewer must resolve consequential uncertainty with the meeting owner. A model checking another model’s draft can help flag issues, but it does not replace authoritative evidence.

An approved earlier version does not authorize a revised message. Recheck if wording changes the promise, recipient, timing, price, or scope.

Practice exercise

Mark every commitment in the rejected draft. Match it to a note or label it unsupported. Write a replacement without adding facts. Have the meeting owner review your evidence table and identify what remains unknown. The exercise passes only if no unsupported promise survives and uncertainty stays visible.

Sources and scope

This is an original editorial review method with synthetic notes and drafts. No sales outcome or measured error reduction is claimed.

Next step

Add the evidence table and reviewer decision to your workflow brief. Keep sending in the ordinary human-controlled process. Suggest a correction.