Review an AI HR Draft Before You Use It
A practical checklist for checking an AI-generated HR draft against supplied facts, supporting sources, missing details, and a named review owner. Static worksheet — not an app feature.
Review one draft after generation, not a vendor
This page is for reviewing a single AI-generated HR draft after it is produced — checking it against the facts you supplied, the sources it should rest on, the details it invented or left out, and naming the human who reviews it. It is not a vendor comparison, a legal policy review, or a version log.
National, US small-business scope. Where a question carries legal, tax, payroll, or benefits implications, route it to an appropriately qualified adviser — this is general practical guidance, not legal advice, and no compliance or accuracy guarantee is made.
The text below is selectable — copy the worksheet into your own document. This worksheet has no data-entry controls.
- 1.Name the single draft task and the source it should rest on.
- 2.Compare each material claim to its supporting source sentence.
- 3.List invented facts, conflicts, and gaps — leave them open.
- 4.Name the reviewer and record the next decision with a date.
Research reviewed for this worksheet
This is an original HR Co-Pilot review worksheet informed by the linked research. It is not an official NIST checklist or standard, and no NIST endorsement, certification, or HR Co-Pilot compliance claim is made.
Section 2.2 describes the risk of confidently incorrect output, and the MS-2.5-003 measure suggests reviewing and verifying AI output sources and citations. Cited here as a public research reference, not as a standard this worksheet meets or enforces.
A voluntary framework for managing AI risk. Referenced as background only — this worksheet is not an official NIST checklist or standard and does not certify any product.
Check the draft before you rely on it
Each check has a concrete question, the evidence to compare, and what to leave pending until a reviewer confirms it. Leave any item open until it is confirmed.
Confirm the draft addresses the single task asked, not an expanded scope.
- 1.Does the draft answer the one task requested, or does it add sections outside that task?
- 2.Who owns the decision on scope, and have they approved any expansion?
Evidence
The original request and the draft side by side.
Leave pending
Any added section not in the original request — leave open until the owner approves scope.
Verify facts needed for the task against approved inputs; omit unrelated details and flag unsupported changes.
- 1.Does the draft use the approved contact, location, and references for this task — or different ones?
- 2.Which facts were changed, dropped, generalized, or invented against the approved input?
Evidence
The approved input notes next to the draft output.
Leave pending
Any substituted or unsupported value — leave open until the source owner confirms it.
Match each material claim in the draft to the approved source it rests on.
- 1.Which sentence in the approved source supports each material claim in the draft?
- 2.Does the draft add claims that appear nowhere in the source?
Evidence
The approved source document, its version, and effective date.
Leave pending
Any claim with no supporting source sentence — mark unconfirmed.
Surface facts the draft invented, conflicts between draft and source, and gaps it left.
- 1.Did the draft invent a date, contact, threshold, or entitlement the source does not state?
- 2.Does the draft conflict with the approved source on any point?
Evidence
A diff of the draft against the supplied/approved source.
Leave pending
Every invented value or conflict — leave open until the reviewer removes or corrects it.
Name the reviewer who checked the draft and what they are responsible for.
- 1.Who reviewed the draft against approved context?
- 2.What is that reviewer responsible for — the wording, the facts, or both?
Evidence
The reviewer's name, role, and review note.
Leave pending
Any draft not yet reviewed — leave status open.
Record the next review state — ready for a final owner decision, revise, or escalate. None of these by itself establishes approval.
- 1.Is the draft ready for a final owner decision, does it need revision, or should it be escalated?
- 2.What is the next action and its date, and who owns it?
Evidence
The decision note and the single next action with a date.
Leave pending
The decision status until the owner records it.
One fictional draft, checked against its source
A clearly fictional employer and an approved orientation note. The AI-styled draft is a sample written for this exercise — not an actual AI product output or a provider result. No real employees, personal events, medical, candidate, discipline, compensation, or sensitive information.
Fictional source brief
Approved orientation note (fictional): Welcome session at [approved location]. Orientation contact: [orientation lead]. Arrival time: unconfirmed in the source. The note names the orientation contact; it does not name a payroll lead and does not state manager approval.
Fictional AI-styled draft (sample, not an actual AI product output)
Sample AI-styled draft (written for this exercise, not an actual AI product output): Welcome session at [approved location], starting at 09:00. Contact for questions: [payroll lead]. Approved by the team manager.
Annotated claim map
Three rows: the draft statement, the source evidence, and the reviewer action.
Draft statement
Starting at 09:00
Source evidence
The source says arrival time is unconfirmed; 09:00 appears nowhere.
Reviewer action
Remove 09:00; leave arrival time as [confirm time].
Draft statement
Contact for questions: [payroll lead]
Source evidence
The source names [orientation lead] as the contact, not a payroll lead.
Reviewer action
Use [orientation lead] once the source owner confirms the current contact.
Draft statement
Approved by the team manager
Source evidence
No manager approval is stated in the source.
Reviewer action
Leave manager approval unconfirmed — do not assert it.
Revised message (illustrative, draft pending review)
Revised message (illustrative, draft pending review): Welcome session at [approved location]. Orientation contact: [orientation lead]. Arrival time: [confirm time]. This message is a draft for review, not a final approved message.
A source can be correct while the AI explanation built on it is wrong. A citation's presence alone is not proof the output is correct — check the explanation against the current source and have the responsible person review it.
A blank review note per draft
The text below is selectable — copy it into your own document. This worksheet has no data-entry controls. This review is not legal approval and does not determine employment outcomes.
Review note entry
Draft purpose
[What the draft is for]
The single task this draft is meant to serve.
Draft version reference
[Version, date, or label of the draft]
Identify the exact draft you are reviewing.
Approved input reference
[The approved source / version the draft should rest on]
The supplied or approved document the draft must align with.
Unsupported claim / open question
[Each claim with no supporting source, or fact still to confirm]
One row per unsupported claim or unresolved detail.
Correction needed
[The change to make — remove, replace, or confirm]
What the reviewer must change before the draft is used.
Qualified review owner
[Who reviews and approves this draft]
The person accountable for the wording and facts.
Decision status
[Ready / revise / escalate — and what remains]
The next decision, not a final approval.
Next action date
[The next concrete action and its date]
One next step with a date, not a verdict.
A short worked illustration. Decision status is pending because the arrival time is unconfirmed in the source.
Draft purpose
[Draft welcome message for a new teammate]
Draft version reference
[AI-styled draft, this exercise]
Approved input reference
[Approved orientation note v1]
Unsupported claim / open question
[09:00 arrival time; [payroll lead] contact; manager approval]
Correction needed
[Remove 09:00; restore [orientation lead]; leave approval unconfirmed]
Qualified review owner
[Orientation owner]
Decision status
[Revise — arrival time unconfirmed]
Next action date
[Confirm arrival time with [orientation lead] — [date]]
When to ask a qualified person
These are questions to route — not professional advice. No legal or compliance determination is made here.
- Does the draft change a company practice, policy, or commitment? If so, who approves that change before it is used?
- Does the draft carry legal, tax, payroll, or benefits implications? If so, route the question to an appropriately qualified adviser.
- Can the source owner not be reached, or can the source not be confirmed current? Who decides whether to hold the draft?
If the draft task is a policy, handbook section, or letter, HR Co-Pilot offers drafting starting points and plain-English HR question help. Human review is required before any output is used. This worksheet does not test a product or certify accuracy.
Related resources
Pair this checklist with the head-to-head comparisons and the drafting tools.
Reviewing an AI HR draft, answered
Common questions about this worksheet. Need something else? Talk to our team.
No. A displayed citation is a reference to verify, not proof the output is correct. Confirm the cited source exists and that it supports the specific claim, then have the responsible person review the explanation built on it before relying on the draft.
Mark the draft as ungrounded and do not use it as if it restated an approved rule. Either locate the approved source it should rest on, or treat the output as a starting idea that needs human review before it is used.
Asking a model to check its own draft can help surface wording, but it is not a substitute for a named reviewer comparing the draft against approved context. Record the human reviewer who is accountable for the wording and facts.
List every invented value, missing fact, and conflict with the source. Remove invented details rather than adopting them, and leave each open item with an owner until it is confirmed. The reviewer approves the corrected draft, not the raw output.
No. This is a practical review worksheet, not a test of any product and not a compliance or accuracy certification. No vendor is claimed to pass or fail. State and local legal questions belong with a qualified adviser.
Record the draft purpose and version, the approved input it rests on, each unsupported claim or open question, the correction needed, the qualified review owner, the decision status (ready, revise, or escalate), and the next action with a date.
HR clarity to your team today.
Ask everyday HR questions and draft a starting point to review with HR Co-Pilot.