Review the output against the source
Course overview · 4 min reading + 12 min practice, estimated
Principles and method
Evaluate correctness, completeness, relevance and handling, not only tone. Check names, dates, qualifications and claims that could influence a decision. Compare summaries with the original material and inspect omissions as well as invented additions. A reviewer needs enough time, source access and authority to reject the output. Rewriting a few words is not meaningful review if the underlying claim remains unsupported. Record recurrent errors and use them to improve the task design, prompt or choice of tool. Some tasks may remain unsuitable.
Worked example
A summary accurately lists three roles but omits that the most relevant experience was an internship. The reviewer restores context because the omission changes how the evidence could be interpreted.
Put it into practice
Review a fictional summary with one invented claim, one omission and one ambiguous statement.
Use fictional information and keep your work in your own notes.
Compare your approach: self-review guidance
Correct all three using the source. Explain which error has the greatest decision consequence. A readable output should not be approved merely because most statements are accurate.
Sources and further reading
Original Academy teaching and fictional examples. These references provide context, not endorsement. Edition 2026.09; updated 2026-09-24.
- GOV.UK: Responsible AI in recruitment
UK guidance on procuring and deploying recruitment AI.
- NIST: AI Risk Management Framework
Voluntary framework for organising AI risks and controls.