Record substantive review of AI-assisted public-interest text

When to use this guide

An AI-assisted public-health article receives a spelling pass, but its factual claims and source interpretation are not checked.

This is a fictional implementation scenario. The procedure below is Article 50 Hub's suggested working method, not a prescribed legal form, a customer result or a claim that every step is an additional statutory requirement.

Review procedure

1. Identify the intended publication purpose and the responsible editorial entity.

2. Record which knowledgeable reviewer examined the substance and which version they reviewed.

3. Document factual corrections, source checks and approval or rejection decisions.

4. Reconcile the published version with the reviewed version and any later changes.

What the example review finds

• Only spelling was checked.

• A generated factual claim was added after the reviewer approved the draft.

Keep these example observations separate from your own results. An unknown or untested state should stay open until the relevant evidence has been inspected.

Fields for your working record

• Publication purpose

• Reviewed version

• Substantive checks

• Editorial responsibility

• Final version

Use the downloadable blank worksheet linked on this page to connect the observed behavior with the deployed system. Add a reviewer, date, evidence reference, unresolved questions and a next action. The worksheet is editable locally and does not upload your records to Article 50 Hub.

Completion and handoff

Close the task only for the scope actually reviewed. Preserve the result that another authorized reviewer can reproduce, identify the owner of remaining work, and record a retest when the implementation changes. A completed worksheet is not a substitute for the underlying evidence.

Decision boundary

This record does not automatically establish an exemption or replace qualified assessment of the publication and workflow.

The official references below provide legal or technical context. Resolve applicability and exception questions with the responsible qualified reviewer; use the product's tools to organize implementation work within that assessment.