Put AI to work with a clear brief.

Specify the input, desired output and constraints in terms somebody else could inspect. A summarisation task might require preserving dates, separating decisions from proposals and identifying missing context. Use a sample that resembles the real work, including a confusing passage or incomplete information. Keep material you are not authorised to share out of the exercise. The purpose of a clear instruction is not to make an output automatically trustworthy; it gives the reviewer a better basis for recognising omissions and departures from the task.

A fluent answer can still alter a qualification, join unrelated statements or invent a connecting explanation. Compare important assertions with the supplied material and mark anything that cannot be supported. Separate readability edits from factual corrections so the reviewer knows what changed. For a draft intended for publication, check names, quotations and the intended audience before approval. If the task requires information outside the input, identify that requirement explicitly instead of treating an unsupported completion as a researched answer.

Keep representative examples of outputs that missed an instruction or failed a review criterion. Record the task conditions and the correction required, with confidential details removed. These cases help decide whether a revised instruction actually improves the work or merely produces a different style. The workbench covers task design, output review and human judgement through practical exercises. It encourages using AI where the result can be inspected and corrected, with an accountable person deciding whether it is suitable for the next step.