✳By Hero Published Sept 12, 2026 · Updated Oct 7, 2026
The useful detailsPick one bounded task, write down how long it takes now and what "good" looks like, test it on a handful of normal examples in an approved tool, and compare quality as well as speed. Count the checking time. If the checked result isn't faster or better, stop.
Pick a bounded task
First drafts, meeting summaries, internal procedures and reformatting are easier to test than anything a client relies on. A good test task has three things: it happens often, someone already owns the result, and a person can tell a good version from a bad one quickly.
Avoid starting with work where an error is expensive and hard to spot, such as figures in a client report or advice someone will act on. Those can come later, once people have a checking habit.
Try it freeWant to see a session first? The free AI Hour is online on the first Friday of every month. Next: Fri, Nov 6, 12 PM ET.
Write the baseline before you change anything
Take five normal examples of the task done the current way. For each one, note:
How long it took, roughly, start to finish
Whether it needed rework, and why
What usually goes wrong
A rough, honest baseline beats a precise number invented afterwards. Without it, every AI test "feels faster", because nobody counts the checking.
Decide where AI stops
Write down which steps the tool may do and which stay with a person. A typical split: AI may structure notes, draft, reword and summarize. A person chooses the sources, handles exceptions, confirms anything involving money, dates or commitments, and gives the final yes.
Agree the checklist before the test, so you judge every output the same way:
Every fact, figure, date and name matches the source, or it's removed
Nothing was added that the source doesn't say
The required details are all there
The tone fits the person who will read it
No personal or confidential detail slipped in
The owner can explain every sentence
A worked example
This is an illustration with made-up numbers, to show the arithmetic. It isn't a measured result.
Before
With AI, including checking
Time per weekly meeting summary
30 minutes
10 minutes to draft + 8 minutes to check = 18 minutes
Summaries needing a correction after sending (out of 5)
1
2 in the first week, 0 by week three
Who signs off
Team lead
Team lead
Read it honestly. In week one, the AI version was faster but less accurate, because the draft invented an action item nobody agreed. The fix wasn't a better tool. It was one more line on the checklist: "every action item has an owner who was in the meeting". By week three, the quality matched the old way and each summary took about 12 minutes less. That is a keep.
If the checked version had been slower, or kept needing corrections, the right answer would have been to stop.
Standardize or stop
After two to four weeks, make a decision:
Keep: write down the steps, the approved tool, the prompt that works, the checklist and the owner, so anyone on the team can repeat it.
Change: adjust one thing (the prompt, the source material, the checklist) and test again for two weeks.
Stop: if the checked result isn't better or faster. Don't keep a tool to justify the subscription.