Check the work before using it

A poor draft is easy to reject. The dangerous draft is 85% correct: polished enough to lower your guard, useful enough to save time, and wrong in one place that changes the conclusion.

The control is not to read the answer more carefully. The control is to trace every material claim back through its evidence.

Do not review the answer in isolation. Review the path from claim to source to calculation to conclusion.

Use TRACE before you use the work

The TRACE method turns verification into a repeatable review sequence:

1. T — Tie facts to source. Open the original page, statement, schedule, or agreement. Confirm that it says what the draft claims. A page citation is not proof if the page does not support the sentence.
2. R — Reperform load-bearing calculations. Independently recompute any figure that affects a rating, covenant, classification, allowance conclusion, or issue. Two matching AI runs are still not independent evidence.
3. A — Assess interpretations. Separate confirmed facts from possible implications and causal explanations. Ask whether the interpretation is established, reasonable but unconfirmed, or unsupported.
4. C — Check completeness and contradictions. Look for omitted risks, inconsistent periods, missing documents, and evidence that conflicts with the draft. A statement can be factually accurate and still be materially incomplete.
5. E — Establish ownership and exceptions. Resolve or flag every gap, document who reviewed the work, and identify the human who adopts and owns the final conclusion.

Six defects that polished prose can hide

A structured review should deliberately search for more than fabricated facts.

| Defect | What it looks like | Reviewer action | |---|---|---| | Transcription | A correct-looking figure with a swapped or omitted digit | Tie to the exact source line and period | | Calculation | Arithmetic that uses a wrong numerator, denominator, sign, or definition | Reperform using approved inputs and definitions | | Citation | A real page that does not support the sentence, or a superseded document | Open the source and confirm the governing version | | Interpretation | A plausible cause presented as established fact | Relabel as an implication or follow-up question | | Omission | A material maturity, exception, contradiction, or missing document goes unmentioned | Search for completeness, not just false statements | | Confidence | A recommendation or conclusion exceeds the evidence or task boundary | Remove it or form the conclusion independently |

Match the review effort to the work

You do not check every output in exactly the same way. Use these plain-language levels now; the advanced path formalizes them as verification tiers.

| Work type | Core-path rule | |---|---| | Load-bearing figure or conclusion input | Recalculate or reperform from source | | High-volume extracted data | Trace a defined sample and expand if any error appears, unless policy requires full verification | | Non-load-bearing prose | Check characterization, completeness, tone, and consistency with verified evidence | | Human-only conclusion | Form and document independently; AI does not hold a role in the final decision |