Make the next decision from what you know.

A synthetic evaluation contains four draft answers to account-setup questions. Three cite the current help article. The fourth cites an archived note and gives the wrong export rule. The reviewer has checked source selection, but has not measured response time, review effort or performance on other questions. A slide that says the assistant improves productivity would go beyond these observations.

Write an evidence note that retains the denominator, the failed example and the evaluation conditions. The note can say which source each draft used and which rule was incorrect. It cannot turn a small constructed exercise into a workforce finding. Repeating the same examples after a change can check that change; a different sample is needed to explore unfamiliar behavior.

• Describe the cases and the checking method.
• Retain failures beside successful examples.
• Separate an observation from a proposed explanation.

Consider a draft handoff summary built from synthetic project notes. The assistant may group accepted tasks and highlight missing owners. A person must check whether the notes actually support each commitment before the summary is shared. Asking a reviewer to approve a polished paragraph without its sources hides the work they need to do.

Design the handoff around decisions: show the source excerpt, the proposed summary and any unresolved conflict together. The reviewer can accept supported material, edit a misleading phrase or hold a claim pending clarification. If the tool cannot show its supporting material, the reviewer should be able to decline the draft rather than approve an attractive but uncheckable answer.

• Make source evidence available during review.
• Keep unresolved commitments visible.
• Allow rejection without forcing a replacement claim.

Suppose the corrected account-setup exercise now handles the original four questions. A proposed next step adds every support category and enables automatic sending. That changes both the content scope and the authority of the workflow at once, leaving the original exercise unable to justify the new behavior. A smaller next step adds one unfamiliar question category while retaining human review and synthetic inputs.

Record the new boundary, the expected result and a condition that would pause the test. For example, pause if a draft presents an unsupported rule as settled or exposes material outside the intended source set. Keep the previous instruction and the failed case available for comparison. Expansion is a decision to test more, not a declaration that uncertainty has disappeared.

• Change one meaningful boundary at a time.
• Retain review while exploring a new task.
• Write the stop condition before reading the result.