Client-facing copy
Claims checked against an approved facts document before anything is scheduled or published.
An agent does the task. A mechanical gate refuses to pass output that breaks your rules — before a person ever sees it.
Most teams that tried AI got the first half. The drafting got faster, and then someone had to read everything anyway, so the time saving disappeared. The missing half was never a better model. It was that nothing checked the output.
Not a prompt asking the model to be careful. A separate program that reads the output, compares it to your rules, and exits with an error when it does not comply. Below is a real one, running against a live storefront: it blocks any claim that contradicts the product's source-of-truth document.
The point is not the vocabulary list. It is that the decision is not left to the model. The same pattern gates ad creative against its brief, blocks a session from closing while the system is in a broken state, and stops a number from drifting between one page and the next.
Claims checked against an approved facts document before anything is scheduled or published.
Every cut checked against the brief — length, structure, banned phrasing — so the weak ones never reach review.
Numbers pulled and verified from the source, never restated from a model's recollection.
If a person checks the same thing daily against the same rules, that check can be a program.
The one place where checking machine output eats real hours.
A short note on whether a gate would fix it. Free, and sometimes the answer is no.
The agent, plus the gate that governs it, running on your rules.
Maintenance, tuning as your rules change, one new workflow a month.
If checking AI output is costing your team hours somewhere, describe that one step. I will send back a written assessment of whether a verification gate would actually fix it — no call required, and no charge either way.
ohad@haisol.net
Written reply, usually same day.
Describe the stepIf a gate would not help, I will tell you that instead.