A clear, confident answer is easy to read. That does not tell you whether it is accurate, complete or suitable for the job.

Checking AI work is easier when you know what you asked it to do and keep the original information nearby. You can then review the answer against something concrete, rather than judging it only by how professional it sounds.

The Australian Government's AI guidance for businesses recommends checking generated information and keeping human oversight. Here is a practical way to apply that to an everyday draft.

Know what you are checking it against

For a summary, the source may be a document. For a workshop notice, it may be a list of confirmed event details. For a calculation, it includes the input figures and the calculation method.

If you asked for open-ended research, first work out which sources could establish the important claims. A fluent paragraph is not its own evidence. Follow a reference to the actual page or document and check whether it supports what the answer says.

Make sure the source is relevant to your situation. A policy for another country, a closed grant or a product page from an earlier release can be real and still be the wrong basis for your decision.

Next: Check facts before polishing style

Check facts before polishing style

Start with the details that would cause a problem if they were wrong:

  • Names, dates, times and locations.
  • Prices, quantities, totals and units.
  • What is included, excluded or still uncertain.
  • Any promise or instruction someone might act on.

Compare those details directly with the input. Do not let a tidy layout distract you from a changed number or an invented condition. If a figure matters, recalculate it independently rather than asking the same answer to confirm itself.

Once the facts are right, review the tone and structure. You can improve an awkward sentence more easily than undo a message sent with the wrong information.

Next: Try a short worked example

Try a short worked example

Use this fictional notice brief:

  • A paper craft workshop starts at 10 am on Saturday.
  • It runs for 90 minutes.
  • Materials are supplied.
  • The price and booking route have not been confirmed.

Now imagine the AI returns: “Join our free two-hour workshop this Saturday. Book online now.”

Three things need attention. “Free” invents a price. “Two-hour” changes the duration. “Book online” implies a booking route that was never supplied.

A better draft could retain the confirmed time, duration and materials. The missing price and booking details should become questions for the organiser, rather than confident public statements. The right result may be a useful draft that is not yet ready to publish.

This is why asking for a separate list of missing information can help. It gives you something to resolve before the final version goes out.

Next: Look for what disappeared

Look for what disappeared

An answer can contain no obviously false statements and still omit something important. A summary might drop an exception. A comparison might leave out an exclusion. A rewritten notice might lose the detail that explains who it is for.

Read the source once more with a different question: “What would the reader need to know that is missing here?”

Where the task has a clear structure, use a small checklist. A supplier comparison could check price, inclusions, exclusions and validity date. Leave a field marked “not supplied” when the source does not answer it. A blank you understand is more useful than an assumption you overlook.

Next: Give corrections that fix the reason

Give corrections that fix the reason

Instead of “make this better”, name the problem and the source of truth:

The brief says 90 minutes, not two hours. The price and booking route are unknown. Revise the notice using only confirmed details, then list the unanswered questions separately.

Read the new answer again. A correction to one sentence does not establish that every other detail is right. If the same error keeps appearing, adjust the saved instructions or reduce the scope of the task.

You can ask the assistant to flag uncertainties or review its draft, but its second opinion is still part of the AI output. It does not replace checking the important details yourself.

Next: Match the review to the consequences

Match the review to the consequences

An internal brainstorm and a customer commitment need different levels of scrutiny. Decide who can check the work and who has authority to use it. Where a decision needs professional expertise, use someone qualified to make that decision.

For connected tools, review actions as well as words. A correct draft appointment is different from a booking that has already changed the calendar. The plain-English MCP guide explains that distinction.

Keep your first checklist short: correct facts, no invented details, important context retained, suitable wording and a clear next step. Then choose one draft you already understand and try reviewing it beside its source. You will have a much better sense of what needs changing than a simple “looks good”.

Next: Further reading

Further reading

The Australian Cyber Security Centre's small-business AI guide includes questions about data handling, checking outputs and responsibility for AI use.