Start With What Was Actually Tested
A small trial can reveal what to investigate next. It cannot establish that an AI tool is reliable for every task or ready for unattended use. Preserve the task, sample selection, acceptance criteria and human corrections before turning a pilot into a recommendation.
The records below are fictional editorial examples, not measurements of any named service. They concern a draft-writing workflow using approved sample material.
Read The Two Notes Together
Pilot note A:
We tried eight short, routine updates selected by the project owner.
Six first drafts kept every required fact.
Two first drafts added an unsupported commitment and were corrected.
Every draft received human review before use.
Pilot note B:
We did not test conflicting source notes, longer documents or sensitive data.
Review time and end-to-end time were not measured.
No evidence was collected about a different account or workflow.
An overstated summary would be:
The AI is 75% accurate, saves time and is ready for the whole team.
Six of eight first drafts met this trial’s fact-preservation check. That is not general accuracy, and the records contain no timing evidence. The sample was selected, small and limited to routine tasks; human corrections were also part of the workflow.
Keep Claims Within The Evidence
| Proposed claim | What the notes support |
|---|---|
| The tool is accurate | Six of eight selected first drafts kept the required facts in this exercise |
| It saves time | Unknown; drafting and review time were not measured |
| It can run unattended | Not established; every draft was reviewed and two needed corrections |
| It works on difficult inputs | Unknown; conflicting notes and longer documents were not tested |
A more useful decision note:
Continue a supervised trial on routine updates. Keep fact and commitment checks before use. Test conflicting notes next and record review effort; do not expand to sensitive material based on this sample.
This is a bounded decision for the fictional exercise, not a recommendation for a particular service.
Make The Next Visit A Specific Check
Keep the full evidence in an approved location. In a saved candidate’s Private test note, record a short version:
Task: eight selected routine-update drafts, each reviewed by a person.
Expected: preserve all supplied facts; add no commitments.
Observed: six met the first-draft check; two required corrections. Time unknown.
Next check: conflicting notes, plus drafting and review effort.
Do not complete a privacy, permissions or plan check because the output looked good. Those are separate questions. Use the actual test date rather than the date you happened to read an announcement.
From a reviewed tool’s page, Open my evaluation appears when that tool is saved in this browser. It opens your note and resets the shortlist’s stage and test-date views to show all saved candidates. It does not change your notes, stage, checks or test date. The link carries a tool path, not your private note, and does not transfer data to another browser.
Continue in your shortlist, or use the small retest exercise when the product or your own workflow changes.