IntellectraAIPractice exercise · 5 minutes to start · no account or email needed
Would You Send This?
Check an AI-written update against its source record and fix every statement the record does not support before it goes out.
What you will practice
Compare each statement in an AI-written draft with the source record, and correct status, dates, decisions, owners, and missing risks before you send it.
You asked an AI tool to turn your notes into an update. The draft reads well. Before it leaves your hands, you need to know whether it says what your record says.
Polished wording can quietly upgrade facts: planned work becomes finished, a requested date becomes a commitment, a discussion becomes an approval. Whoever drafted the update, the person who sends it is the one others will hold to it.
A quick example
Fictional note: “Parent workshop — 3 October proposed by the team. Room not booked yet.”
Before
“The parent workshop will take place on 3 October in the library.”
After
“We have proposed 3 October for the parent workshop. The room is not booked yet.”
The draft turned a proposal into a fixed date and invented a room. The revision is less certain because the facts are less certain.
Your turn — about 5 minutes
Fictional project: Phase 2 of an office relocation (the IT cutover). You asked an AI tool to draft Tuesday’s status update for the sponsor from your notes.
Read the source record, then decide for each sentence in the draft whether it is ready as written or needs to change.
Your verified notes — Tuesday
- Network cabling at the new site: complete. Facilities signed it off on Monday.
- Laptop re-imaging: 140 of 220 devices done. The remaining 80 are planned for next week.
- Cutover date: the sponsor asked for 14 March. IT operations has not confirmed capacity. Decision due at Thursday’s steering meeting.
- Help-desk cover for cutover weekend: no owner assigned yet (Priya and Sam both discussed it).
- Badge-access integration: the vendor’s email says “on track.” No test results yet.
- Risk: moving the server room depends on the landlord approving access. Still pending.
AI draft
Choose one answer for each statement. 0 of 7 answered.
Use real project information only in tools your organization has approved for it. Everything in this case is fictional.
Review rubric
Use these questions on your own work, not just on the exercise.
- Traceable
- Does every consequential statement point to a line in the record?
- Status
- Do status words (planned, in progress, complete) match the record exactly?
- Dates
- Is each date labeled as requested, proposed, or confirmed?
- Decisions
- Is every decision marked pending unless the record shows an approval?
- Owners
- Does every action have a named owner, or say “owner needed”?
- Risks
- Do the material risks and open questions from the record still appear?
- Audience
- Is anything included that the audience should not see or does not need?
Also check, for this kind of work
- Dependencies are stated with their current status, not their hoped-for status.
- Every “decision needed” names when and where it will be decided.
Go deeper — 20–30 minutes with your own work
- Pick an update you would normally write this week: a status note, summary, listing, or message.
- Before you open any AI tool, gather the record you would check it against. If the record is scattered, that is a finding worth writing down.
- Draft the update with an AI tool your organization approves, using only information you are allowed to put in it. If you have no approved tool, review a past update you wrote yourself.
- Mark every statement Ready or Change, then check the draft against each rubric question above.
- Correct the draft and fill in the review card below, including how long the review took.
Stop or change the exercise if
- You cannot find an authoritative record to check against.
- Your organization’s rules do not allow the tool or the information.
- Reviewing takes longer than writing the update yourself. Record that too; it is a useful result.
Keep this: Pre-send review card
A one-screen record of what you checked, what you changed, and what the review cost.
What you type here stays in your browser and is lost when you leave the page. Keep real work details in the tools your organization approves.
Reflect
Which statement would have caused the most trouble if you had sent it unchanged, and what in the record told you?
Do it again
Run the review on your next real update, or try another case. When you are ready, “Helpful, but Unsupported” applies the same habit to answers checked against a policy.
- Helpful, but Unsupported — Map each claim in an AI assistant’s answer to a fixed policy, catch what the policy contradicts or never says, and write a corrected answer that still helps.
- One Mistake, One Checklist — Turn one concrete lesson from your work into a short checklist someone else could use, with a clear trigger, specific checks, the judgment it cannot replace, and its limits.
- Could Someone Continue This Tomorrow? — Write a handoff note that lets a colleague, or a fresh AI session, pick up the work without you: goal, state, sources, decisions, open questions, next actions, and what to leave out.
A personal next step
Which capability should you practice first?
The free 10-minute assessment helps you see which tasks AI may affect, where your professional judgment matters, and which capability to strengthen first. You get a personal report, a learning path, and a four-week Development Plan. It is an educational starting point, not a job prediction or a credential.
Map My Work