Use AI writing assistance without outsourcing fact checking

A useful boundary is to distinguish transforming material from establishing facts. Asking a writing assistant to shorten a paragraph you have supplied is different from asking it to explain a product's current capabilities. Both outputs need review, but the second introduces claims that may not exist in your source material.

NIST's Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile identifies confabulation as a risk: generated output can contain false information presented with confidence. For an editor, the operational implication is straightforward. A convincing sentence, a detailed number or a plausible-looking citation should not be accepted solely because the system produced it.

Give the tool a bounded job

Suitable drafting requests might include offering alternative headings for an approved outline, identifying unclear language in a supplied passage or proposing a shorter version that preserves specified qualifications. State what must not change. For example, ask the assistant to keep a service limitation and mark any statement it cannot support from the provided material.

Do not mistake those instructions for a guarantee. Compare the result with the source yourself. A rewrite may remove a condition, strengthen ‘may’ into ‘will’ or combine two statements into a conclusion neither source supports. These small changes are easy to miss because the revised paragraph often reads more smoothly than the original.

Review claims separately from style

Make a factual pass before polishing. Identify names, dates, quantities, quotations, causal explanations and descriptions of capabilities. Check them against sources you can actually open and evaluate. If a citation is supplied, verify that it exists and supports the particular claim; a real page can still be attached to the wrong assertion.

Treat invented examples differently from real cases. A hypothetical customer journey can clarify a process when labelled as such. It should not acquire a company name, testimonial or result that makes it look like documented experience. If you need an actual case study, obtain the evidence and permission through the appropriate process rather than asking the assistant to make one sound believable.

Protect the material going in

Use only information that your organisation has authorised for the selected service and account arrangement. Avoid entering confidential client details, private correspondence or unpublished business material merely because it would make the prompt more convenient. Check the applicable service settings and organisational rules with the responsible person. Different tools and account configurations should not be treated as interchangeable.

A human editor should own the finished piece, including any passages substantially assisted by AI. That means checking meaning, removing repetition, confirming that examples fit the audience and deciding whether the text is worth publishing at all. Generating more alternatives does not resolve a brief that lacks a clear purpose.

Keep the workflow proportionate. For a low-risk rewrite of already checked material, a comparison with the original may be sufficient. Claims involving consequential decisions need the relevant expertise and sources, not a more elaborate prompt. If a factual question cannot be resolved, omit or qualify the claim rather than allowing the speed of generation to set the standard for publication.