Review an AI reply before it leaves

A practical checklist for accuracy, commitments and escalation.

Read it as a customer would.

A reply can sound confident while missing the customer's actual request. Compare the draft with the original message. Has it answered the right question, identified what is missing, and made the next step clear?

Check each factual statement.

Review service details against current, approved information. If the draft refers to a policy or document, confirm that the source supports what it says. When the source does not contain an answer, the draft should ask for clarification or hand the request to a person.

Look for unintended promises.

Check dates, prices, availability, compatibility and statements about results. A friendly phrase such as “we can have that ready tomorrow” may create an expectation the business has not agreed to. Keep commitments with the person responsible for them.

Check what information belongs in the reply.

Remove internal notes and information about another customer. Use only what the recipient needs. A request involving credentials, private records or an unusual account action should follow the team's established process.

Make the escalation useful.

A handoff should explain what the customer asked, what information is missing and why a person needs to decide. A vague warning makes more work for the next person.

Keep track of corrections.

• Was the problem a missing or outdated source?
• Did the workflow misunderstand the request?
• Was the review boundary unclear?
• Should this kind of request bypass drafting?

Recurring corrections tell you where to improve the workflow. They also help decide whether a particular request type belongs in the pilot.

Inspect a fictional inquiry preview or explore Customer Service AI.

Use this guide to prepare your team's discussion. A project's scope depends on your sources, systems, and review requirements.