A practical review workflow for AI-assisted content

Define the publication decision before drafting

What should happen between receiving an AI-assisted draft and approving it for a website? Our proposed answer is a documented editorial review: identify the reader's task, check the statements you intend to publish, and decide who owns the final version. This article offers a workflow you can adapt. It does not claim that following the workflow guarantees accuracy, search visibility, or any other outcome.

Google's guidance describes generative AI as potentially useful for researching a topic and structuring original content. It also warns that generating many pages without adding value for users may violate its scaled content abuse policy. Google's guidance on generative AI content.

Start with our proposed publication brief. Write one sentence describing the intended reader, one question the article should answer, and one boundary around the subject. For a hypothetical example, a small publishing team might commission a guide answering: “How should an editor check an AI-assisted help article?” The boundary could exclude product comparisons, traffic forecasts, and claims about untested features.

Then specify what the reader should be able to do after reading. For this example, our proposed acceptance criterion is that the reader can inspect a draft and record a decision about its supporting evidence. Use that criterion when assessing the finished article. Google explicitly says it does not have a preferred word count. Google's content self-assessment guidance. Treat any length target you set as your own commissioning choice.

Separate evidence from editorial choices

Google explains that generative models predict likely word sequences from training data and that their outputs may contain inaccuracies. Its guidance calls for manual fact-checking and review of AI-generated content before publication. Google's accuracy guidance.

Our proposed evidence register contains four entries for each factual statement: the draft sentence, the supporting passage, its source address, and the editor's decision. Read the entire sentence against the passage. If the sentence contains two assertions, consider recording them separately. Give each statement a status of “supported,” “needs clarification,” or “remove.” These labels are our suggested working convention.

Consider a hypothetical draft claiming that a tool prepares summaries and distributes them automatically to a team. If the supplied documentation discusses summary preparation alone, our proposed decision is to accept neither the combined sentence nor the distribution claim without further evidence. Rewrite the sentence around the documented function, or leave a specific research question for the editor.

Also separate evidence from recommendations. “We propose assigning a reviewer” expresses an editorial choice. “Assigning a reviewer prevents factual errors” asserts an outcome and would need supporting evidence. Use the first form when describing your own process unless you have a source that directly supports the second.

For our suggested register, add a short reason beside every unresolved item. Examples include “distribution function not documented,” “number lacks a source,” or “statement omits the condition in the source.” Ask the next reviewer to resolve that particular issue. Do not turn an unknown detail into a confident statement simply to finish the paragraph.

Give the draft a narrow assignment

Our proposed drafting instruction combines the reader's question with the approved material: “Prepare an outline using these sources. Identify statements requiring evidence. Keep our editorial suggestions visibly separate. Do not add product features, measurements, or promised outcomes absent from the supplied material.” Treat the instruction as part of the assignment, then assess the output independently.

Before requesting full prose, we suggest reviewing the outline. Give every heading a question to answer or an action to describe. Mark sections supported by sources and sections containing your proposed workflow. For a heading without either role, decide whether to remove it, revise it, or commission further research.

Set an example policy at the same time. Our proposed convention is to introduce invented scenarios explicitly as hypothetical examples. Do not present them as customer accounts, tests, or the author's experience. If you want to publish an account of a test, first prepare a record of what was actually done and observed, then limit the description to that record.

You can also ask for a separate list of open questions. In our workflow, the editor chooses which questions deserve investigation and which fall outside the article's scope. An unresolved question need not become a new section. Return to the brief and decide whether answering it is necessary to fulfill the specific promise made to the reader.

Review the article's promise and its surrounding text

Google's self-assessment questions ask about original information, research or analysis, substantial coverage, and additional value beyond copying or rewriting sources. They also ask whether a title describes the content helpfully without exaggeration. Google's helpful-content questions.

Our proposed usefulness review begins with the headline. Write down its promise in plain language, then point to the passages that fulfill it. If the headline promises a checklist, include a usable checklist. If it promises a comparison, identify shared criteria and explain the options against those criteria. If the draft only introduces a topic, consider a title that reflects that narrower scope.

Next, inspect words such as “always,” “best,” “automatically,” and “guaranteed.” Under our proposed convention, each requires a deliberate decision. Verify the precise assertion, qualify it to match the evidence, or remove it. Do not replace a sweeping claim with a different unsupported promise.

Google's review guidance also covers title elements, meta descriptions, structured data, and image alternative text. Google's guidance on reviewing generated content. Include these items in your own review sheet. Compare a page description with the actual article and inspect captions for assertions that never appear in the supported body text.

For our proposed final reading, temporarily set the draft aside and use the brief alone to list what you expect to find. Then compare that list with the article. Record omissions as concrete edits, such as “add the acceptance criteria” or “explain the unresolved status,” rather than an instruction to make the whole piece more useful.

Commission language editions separately

Google distinguishes a multilingual website, which offers content in more than one language, from a multiregional website, which explicitly targets users in different countries. Google's multilingual-site documentation.

Our proposed editorial approach is to give each language edition its own brief and review. Keep the evidence requirements consistent, but let the author choose the explanation order, examples, and wording for that edition. Do not add regional prices, availability, or audience habits without evidence. Treat a change to the factual substance as a research question, rather than a stylistic adjustment.

Use a short terminology sheet as our suggested convention. Record preferred terms for the draft, reviewer, source register, and publication decision. Ask the language reviewer to inspect headings, captions, buttons, and instructional examples alongside the prose. Record their proposed edits against the same acceptance criteria used for that edition.

Google recommends separate URLs for language versions and hreflang annotations to help identify the appropriate version. It also recommends links through which users can choose another language and advises against automatic redirects based on an assumed language. Google's language-version recommendations. Our proposed handoff is to give these website tasks to the person responsible for implementation, with a separate completion decision from the editorial review.

Record approval as a specific action

Our proposed closing checklist has three possible decisions: approve, revise, or hold. For approval, record the reviewer and the accepted version. For revision, identify the exact statements or sections to change. For a hold, name the evidence or answer required before work resumes. Make the record specific enough for another editor to understand the next action.

The Max AI registration page describes Max AI as an “Operating system for AI agents.” Max AI registration page. That description alone does not establish particular drafting or review features. Use the workflow here as your own editorial worksheet: choose a small article, define its reader question, inspect its evidence, and record a publication decision. To visit registration, select Create account.