Make the Output Easy to Inspect

Work through the explanation, apply it to the example, and complete the quick check before continuing.

Text description of the visual

The figure contrasts a hard-to-review paragraph with an inspectable table. The table separates risk, evidence, owner, and next action, making it easier for a reviewer to find unsupported claims. A criteria section lists observable checks: amounts must match the source, missing evidence must be labelled, the summary must follow the table, and a human reviewer decides what the result means.

Format is part of the task

An output may contain useful ideas but still be hard to use.

Compare:

• A long paragraph describing ten project risks.
• A table with risk, evidence, possible effect, owner, and next action.

The table may be easier to review because each claim has a visible place.

Define the structure

Useful format instructions include:

• Length range.
• Headings and order.
• Required fields or columns.
• Bullet list, table, email, memo, or plain text.
• Date, number, and unit formats.
• Fields for missing information or uncertainty.

Choose a format that fits the next action. Do not request a table merely because tables look organised.

Define review criteria

Review criteria are the standards used to judge the output.

Good criteria are observable.

Weak:

Make it excellent.

Stronger:

• Every date matches Source A.
• The opening states the required action.
• No unsupported benefit is added.
• The text uses words suitable for a general audience.
• Missing information is labelled.
• The final section names the responsible contact.

The criteria guide both generation and human review.

Do not ask the model to certify itself

An instruction such as check that you are correct may encourage a second pass, but it is not independent verification.

For material claims, the specification should name the source, calculation, or qualified reviewer used for checking.

Worked example

Task: compare two proposals.

Output format:

Return a table with one row for each requirement and columns for Requirement, Proposal A evidence, Proposal B evidence, Difference, and Missing information. After the table, write a 100-word summary of the three most important differences. Do not recommend a winner.

Review criteria:

Every table entry must point to a supplied proposal section. Missing evidence must say Not found. The summary must match the table. A procurement reviewer will decide what the differences mean.

This format makes unsupported claims easier to find and preserves the human decision.

Remember

• Choose a format that supports use and review.
• Name required fields, order, and missing-information treatment.
• Use observable quality criteria.
• Self-checking is not independent verification.

Next, we will use examples and clarification without letting them replace the specification.