A convincing answer still needs a proper check.
A tool produces documents quickly and the leader likes the first examples. A closer review reveals missing conditions and incorrect conclusions. Participants disagree about quality because they assess different aspects of the text and have not agreed a shared evaluation method.
Go straight to the possible work ↓A useful distinction
What makes the output difficult to evaluate?
Not sure yet: general approachConsidering this option: The output looks suitable, but reviewing it takes too much work
Where we could start
Follow one task from its inputs to actual use of the output. Compare preparation and review with the previous way of working, identify recurring corrections and define the conditions under which AI use is worthwhile.
What you would have
A comparison of working methods and review requirements to support a decision about continued use.
Who needs to be involved
People preparing and reviewing the material, its recipients and the manager assessing its practical value.
Roles and decisions
I organise the comparison and agreement on a working process. Time savings and quality are established through evaluation, not promised in advance; implementation and training are discussed separately if needed.
This is a starting point for a conversation. We would check the approach against your task.
Prepare an enquiry
This is an editable starting outline, not a submitted enquiry. Add your own circumstances.