Content workflow prototype
Content Workflow Prototype
Turn a fictional brief into a plan, check a draft's claims against its sources, request revisions, and see the gate decision.
Working prototype · fictional briefs · no model connected · deterministic checks
No AI model is connected. The drafts are either sample drafts written by hand for this demonstration, with some deliberately unsupported claims, or sentences assembled from your own sources by a template. Everything runs in your browser; nothing is sent or stored.
About this prototype
The business problem
Drafts, whether written by people or by AI, pick up claims nobody can back up: a figure with no source, a “guaranteed” promise, a citation that says something else. Publishing them is a risk.
What to try
Load a sample and run the checks. Choose findings and request a revision. Edit the draft to add a claim of your own, or write your own brief and sources and watch the plan and checks follow them.
Implemented and simulated
Implemented: brief checks, the plan, the claim checks, capped revisions, the machine assessment and, separately, the reviewer's disposition.
Not connected: a writing model. Sample drafts are hand-written; template drafts only quote your sources.
Connecting it to a real business
Real, attributable sources; a writing model behind the same checks; stronger claim matching reviewed on real content; named reviewers with sign-in; and a record of every decision.
1. The brief
The brief is ready.
Status Choose a sample or write a brief, then press Plan and draft.
2. The plan
- No plan yet.
3. The draft
No draft yet.
Numbered sources
What the draft may cite
4. Findings and revisions
No checks run yet.
5. Gate decision
Machine assessment · deterministic checks
No decision yet
Run the checks to get a decision.
Human disposition · a person decides
Not started
Rule: a person may accept only content assessed NEEDS HUMAN REVIEW. BLOCKED content, including any draft with an unresolved placeholder, cannot be accepted. The person's decision never changes the machine assessment; both stay on record.
History
What happened
What these checks can and cannot establish
They can show
- A figure in a sentence also appears in a source it cites.
- Every cited source exists in the brief.
- A sentence shares at least two key words with each source it cites.
- Every planned section is present and has real text under its heading, and no placeholder is left. Any remaining placeholder blocks the draft: it must be replaced with real text before a reviewer can accept it.
- Listed superlatives and absolutes (“the best”, “guaranteed”) are absent.
They cannot show
- That a source is true, current or authoritative.
- That a sentence means what its source means: shared words are not shared meaning.
- Claims made without figures, listed words or citations.
- Tone, accuracy for a particular reader, or legal suitability.
- That “Ready” content should be published. A person still decides.
Defects found in review, and how they were fixed
Real failures of this prototype, each reproduced, fixed and covered by a regression test.
- A sentence typed after a placeholder was merged with it and escaped the checks. The sentence splitter now ends a sentence after a closing bracket as well.
- A draft made only of headings reached “Ready” with no findings. A heading with no text under it is now a blocking finding.
- A draft whose sections held only placeholders could be accepted by a reviewer. Placeholder-only sections are now blocking.
- After a revision, a draft that still held placeholders showed “Needs human review” and could be accepted. Any remaining placeholder now blocks the draft, and the reviewer's decision is shown apart from the machine assessment.