Automated content QA and compliance · implementation

Review AI semantic findings alongside deterministic publishing checks

In this proposed workflow, an AI review model compares an account-export draft with the approved administrator-only policy and proposes passage-level semantic conflicts. Exact-token and required-field checks run separately. Security confirms the permission finding, accessibility reviewers test the instructions, and the publishing gate requires recorded owner decisions before release.

Read the business case

Business goal: Manage risk
Business metric: Audit findings

Prerequisites and scope

Before AI semantic review, establish the account-export draft’s release, approved permission policy, passage identifiers, and reviewer authority. Supply versioned examples of paraphrases, quotations, and permitted exceptions, alongside deterministic rule definitions.

The working sequence

AI proposes conflicts in meaning between draft claims and approved policy; deterministic checks handle exact tokens and required fields. Security, technical, and accessibility reviewers decide whether the corrections satisfy the publishing criteria.

Convert policy into testable checks

Content team: The content team records the prohibited broad claim, required administrator condition, accessible-name requirement, and evidence link in a rule record. It maps rules to the topic types they govern.

Depends on: Security and product owners authorize the permission rule; accessibility specialists define the acceptance criterion. The AI reviewer proposes semantic permission violations from the draft and approved policy; deterministic code handles exact tokens and required fields.

Run checks with traceable findings

Content team: The AI model flags “Every team member can download the account’s records” as a candidate conflict with administrator-only policy, retaining both passages and their versions. Separate code records required-field and accessible-name presence failures. Writers fix clear style and structure issues and send factual conflicts to the relevant expert.

Depends on: Technical reviewers test the export path in the current product. Legal reviewers decide trademark or copyright issues. Automated scores never replace those decisions.

Resolve and release

Content team: Each finding receives a fix, accepted false positive, or dated exception with an approver. The publishing gate checks that critical findings are resolved and stores the signed decision with the topic version.

Depends on: The CMS or pipeline must enforce the gate and preserve logs. If policy evidence is unavailable, the topic remains in review instead of being silently approved.

Validation and exceptions

Test AI findings on permission paraphrases and valid exceptions, and have security adjudicate them against the cited policy. A technical reviewer tests the corrected administrator export path; accessibility review checks meaning beyond the presence of a name.

A quoted historical policy may legitimately contain old wording; mark the quotation and effective period rather than rewriting it. For an urgent release, an exception needs a named authority, reason, expiry, and follow-up check. Treat a checker outage as an incomplete review, not a pass.

Keep it current

Update rules when permissions, accessibility requirements, or legal guidance change. Re-run affected published topics and inspect missed defects. Version both the rules and test examples so reviewers can explain why a finding changed.

Evidence of progress

Use a fixed evaluation set with paraphrases, legitimate quotations, and approved exceptions; retain model, prompt, rule version, and finding evidence. Count missed semantic conflicts and false findings separately from deterministic control failures. Record signed decisions and test the export procedure before comparing equivalent audit scopes.

Use release inventory and check logs for Policy check coverage; issue and decision timestamps for Review disposition time; confirmed post-publication incidents for Escaped critical defects. Compare documentation-related Audit findings only across equivalent audit scopes.

These are proposed measures for the illustrative workflow. A business result needs observed, comparable operating data and a review of other causes.

Return to the business impact

How we work
with your team

We can guide your team, work alongside it, or deliver the work for you. Combine these approaches as your needs and capacity change.

Lead

Build capability

We guide your people through the work, building capability that stays with your team.

Support

Add specialist backup

Your team owns the work. We provide experienced backup and specialist help where you need it.

Do

Delegate delivery

We handle work that is one-time, specialized, or outside your core business, without adding an ongoing burden to your team.

Build your team's skills with standard and custom courses.

More about our approach

Support for this implementation

Intuitive Stack can help prepare approved policy inputs and passage-level AI findings for security review, alongside deterministic checks and recorded publishing decisions.

Plan a controlled pilot