New capability still needs good judgment

Keep creation and verification together

Being able to generate a sales page does not mean every claim on it is accurate. Producing an analysis does not establish that the inputs were complete. The ability to create something should travel with a method for checking it: a source, a reviewer, a test or a comparison with a known result.

For customer-facing work, name the person who approves the final version. Give that person enough context to challenge the output. A generic request to “check this” is weaker than a checklist covering prices, eligibility, promises, factual support and the next step offered to the customer.

Let the task earn more autonomy

Begin with low-consequence work that can be corrected easily. A draft outline is different from a message sent to every customer. Increase access and autonomy only after you understand common errors, permission boundaries and how a human can stop or reverse the process.

Keep a record of what people learned, not just what the tool produced. Ask a team member to explain why the final answer is suitable and where it could fail. If no one can explain it, polished output may be masking a gap in understanding.

Reward useful work, not volume

Measure whether the new capability improves a real outcome: a clearer proposal, a better-informed decision or less repeated work. More documents are not automatically more value. Choose a small number of meaningful tests and review the failures alongside the successes.