# AI Content Quality — Management & Review Framework

## AI Content Quality Checklist

Before publishing any AI-assisted content, verify:

### Factual Accuracy
- [ ] All statistics are verified against original sources
- [ ] All dates, names, and company references are accurate
- [ ] No hallucinated facts, studies, or quotes
- [ ] All URLs and links are real and working
- [ ] Product features/pricing are current and correct

### Originality & Value
- [ ] Content adds genuine insight beyond what's already published
- [ ] Unique perspective, framework, or data is included
- [ ] Not a generic rehash of top search results
- [ ] Contains at least one element readers can't get elsewhere
- [ ] Voice and perspective feel authentic, not generic

### Brand Voice
- [ ] Matches brand voice dimensions (formality, energy, humor, authority)
- [ ] Uses preferred vocabulary, avoids restricted words
- [ ] Personality traits are evident in the writing
- [ ] Tone is appropriate for the target channel

### Readability & Structure
- [ ] Appropriate grade level for target audience
- [ ] Paragraphs are concise (2-4 sentences)
- [ ] Logical heading hierarchy
- [ ] Lists and tables used where appropriate
- [ ] No repetitive sentence structures
- [ ] Transitions flow naturally between sections

---

## Common AI Content Pitfalls

| Pitfall | How to Spot It | How to Fix It |
|---------|---------------|--------------|
| **Generic language** | Phrases like "in today's fast-paced world" | Replace with specific, concrete statements |
| **Hallucinated facts** | Statistics without verifiable sources | Fact-check every number and claim |
| **Lack of POV** | Content reads as neutral summary | Add expert opinion, take a position |
| **Repetitive structure** | Every section follows same pattern | Vary formats (list, narrative, table, example) |
| **Over-hedging** | "May," "might," "could potentially" everywhere | Make definitive statements where supported |
| **Missing specificity** | "Many companies" instead of "67% of B2B firms" | Replace vague claims with data |
| **Filler paragraphs** | Sections that don't add new information | Delete or replace with substantive content |
| **Inconsistent depth** | Some sections detailed, others superficial | Balance depth across all sections |

---

## Human Review Workflow

### AI Handles (Draft Phase)
- Initial research and outline
- First draft of body content
- Generating content variations (headlines, CTAs)
- Formatting and structure
- SEO optimization (keyword placement, meta descriptions)

### Human Reviews (Edit Phase)
- Factual accuracy verification
- Brand voice alignment
- Unique insight and perspective injection
- Tone and sensitivity review (cultural, legal, brand safety)
- Final approval for publication

### Review Roles
| Role | Responsibility | Time Required |
|------|---------------|-------------|
| **Subject matter expert** | Verify accuracy, add expertise | 15-30 min per piece |
| **Brand voice reviewer** | Check voice consistency, tone | 10-15 min per piece |
| **Editor** | Readability, structure, flow | 20-30 min per piece |
| **Compliance reviewer** | Legal claims, disclosures, regulations | 10-20 min (if applicable) |

---

## AI Content Disclosure

### When to Disclose
- **Required**: When regulations mandate disclosure (evolving — check jurisdiction)
- **Recommended**: When content is substantially AI-generated
- **Not needed**: When AI is used as a writing tool but human significantly edits

### Disclosure Language Options
- "This article was written with AI assistance and reviewed by [Expert Name]"
- "Research and initial drafting assisted by AI. Verified and edited by our editorial team"
- Keep disclosure simple, honest, and non-defensive

---

## Quality Scoring for AI Outputs

| Dimension | Weight | 0 (Fail) | 5 (Adequate) | 10 (Excellent) |
|-----------|--------|----------|-------------|----------------|
| Factual accuracy | 25% | Contains hallucinations | All facts correct | Adds verifiable data beyond prompt |
| Originality | 20% | Generic rehash | Some unique angles | Genuinely novel insights |
| Brand voice match | 20% | Off-brand | Mostly aligned | Unmistakably on-brand |
| Readability | 15% | Wrong level for audience | Appropriate level | Perfectly calibrated |
| Actionability | 10% | Theoretical only | Some actionable advice | Specific, implementable guidance |
| Structure | 10% | Poor organization | Well-organized | Exceptional flow and formatting |

**Score 80+**: Publish with minor edits. **60-79**: Significant human editing needed. **Below 60**: Regenerate or rewrite.
