Capability template for executive and office support
Reviewer comments into one resolution list
The owner of a document that came back from several reviewers gets one checklist: every proposed edit and comment, grouped by section, with clashes between reviewers set side by side. Every item stays open until the owner decides it, and the document itself is never touched.
The outcome
Three marked-up copies, two emails and a note from a phone call become one list you can work down in a sitting. Every suggestion is there once, under the name of the person who made it, in their own words, filed under the section of the document it belongs to. Where two reviewers want different things from the same sentence, you see both together and choose.
Nothing slips through. A comment on a table that no longer exists, or a change buried in a chart, is listed for you to check by hand instead of quietly disappearing. Changes to figures, dates, names and promises are marked so they get a second look.
The capability never edits, merges or tidies your document, and it never decides who is right. Every item starts open. You decide each one, make the edits in your own document, and reply to your reviewers yourself.
Who starts the work, and when
The person who owns the document starts it, as soon as the last reviewer's comments are in: the author of a report, the manager pulling together a proposal or plan, the coordinator of a funding application, or the assistant who keeps a board paper moving. It runs again after the owner has made decisions, to record them and show what is still open.
What they supply
- The version you are revising, with its name and section headings.
- Each reviewer's returned copy, as a marked-up file or an export of its comments and changes. The template sets the export columns it expects and stops to ask if yours differ.
- Anything that came another way: emails, chat messages and call notes, with who sent them and when.
- Your settings: your deadline, the kinds of change you want marked for a second look, and whether reviewers appear by name or by role.
Everything is supplied by you. No mailbox or document system is connected.
What comes out
- A header naming every reviewer, what they sent and how many items it held, with counts that add up.
- What to settle first: each clash, each comment that could not be placed, and each change that needs checking by hand.
- The clashes, each reviewer's version shown one under the other with the reason they cannot both be done.
- The checklist by section, in the order of your document, every item marked Open with room for your decision and note.
- The lists at the end: items not placed, items to check by hand, items marked for a second look, and suggestions two reviewers share.
In a good list, every item traces back to a reviewer's copy, and nobody's comment is missing or reworded.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The organisation, the funder, the people, the report and every figure below are invented. Charity A is an invented community food charity. Ines, its communications lead, owns the quarterly report to its funder, Funder B. Three people reviewed version 3: Kofi, the programme director, and Margit, the finance manager, each returned a marked-up copy, which Ines exported to a comments-and-changes file; Theo, the board chair, sent an email. First come the inputs Ines supplied, in full, then the list the capability returned.
The inputs
1. Settings
Owner: Ines, communications lead
Today: 15 October 2026
Deadline: 23 October 2026, report due to Funder B
Watch list: the default
Naming rule: reviewers named as given
2. The base version
FUNDER REPORT: JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2026 (version 3)
1. Summary
This quarter we served 4,180 households, up from 3,760 last quarter. Our new
Saturday distribution opened on 6 July and now serves around 300 households a week.
2. Meals and families served
We distributed 61,400 meals. Fresh produce made up 38 per cent of what we gave out,
our highest share yet. Demand rose most among families with children under five.
3. Volunteers
112 volunteers gave 5,960 hours. We trained 18 new shift leads.
4. Spending against the grant
We spent $48,200 of the $52,000 quarterly grant. The $3,800 underspend comes from a
delayed refrigeration repair, now booked for October.
5. Next quarter
We will open a second evening session in November and begin a pilot with two
schools.
3. Export of Kofi's marked-up copy
reviewer,date,type,section,anchor_text,proposed_text,comment
Kofi (programme director),2026-10-12,replace,1. Summary,around 300 households a week,about 320 households a week,
Kofi (programme director),2026-10-12,comment,2. Meals and families served,our highest share yet,,Can we say why? The new grower partnership.
Kofi (programme director),2026-10-12,replace,2. Meals and families served,[chart],[chart],
Kofi (programme director),2026-10-12,insert,3. Volunteers,We trained 18 new shift leads.,Volunteer turnover fell to 9 per cent.,
Kofi (programme director),2026-10-12,delete,5. Next quarter,and begin a pilot with two schools,,Schools pilot is not confirmed yet.
Kofi (programme director),2026-10-12,comment,Table 1,Table 1: households by area,,Table 1 numbers need updating for September.
4. Export of Margit's marked-up copy
reviewer,date,type,section,anchor_text,proposed_text,comment
Margit (finance manager),2026-10-13,replace,1. Summary,around 300 households a week,around 280 households a week,Register average Jul-Sep is 281.
Margit (finance manager),2026-10-13,replace,4. Spending against the grant,"$48,200","$48,650",
Margit (finance manager),2026-10-13,replace,4. Spending against the grant,"The $3,800 underspend","The $3,350 underspend",Late invoice from the van lease posted 10 Oct.
Margit (finance manager),2026-10-13,comment,5. Next quarter,begin a pilot with two schools,,Keep this in. The funder asked about schools last quarter.
5. Theo's email
From: Theo (board chair)
Date: 14 October 2026
Subject: Funder report v3
Ines, I've read version 3. Three things:
- The summary should open with the Saturday distribution. It's the headline.
- In the volunteers section, add a line thanking the shift leads.
- In the spending section, say the refrigeration repair is booked for 21 October, not just October.
Thanks, Theo
The output
RESOLUTION LIST: Funder report: July to September 2026, version 3
For: Ines, communications lead. Prepared 15 October 2026 from 3 reviewer inputs. Deadline: 23 October 2026, report due to Funder B.
Reviewers:
R1 Kofi, programme director: export of a marked-up copy, dated 12 October 2026. 6 items.
R2 Margit, finance manager: export of a marked-up copy, dated 13 October 2026. 4 items.
R3 Theo, board chair: email, dated 14 October 2026. 3 items.
Items: 13 (4 replacements, 1 insertion, 1 deletion, 0 moves, 0 formatting, 3 comments, 3 notes, 1 check by hand). Clashes: 2. Watch items: 7. Open: 13. Decided by the owner: 0.
To settle first: 4
1. Clash C1 (R1-01, R2-01): two different figures for the Saturday households.
2. Clash C2 (R1-05, R2-04): remove or keep the schools pilot.
3. Not placed (R1-06): Kofi's comment on "Table 1: households by area"; the base has no Table 1.
4. Check by hand (R1-03): a change in section 2 that the export shows only as "[chart]".
Clashes: 2
C1. 1. Summary: "around 300 households a week"
R1-01 Kofi: replace with "about 320 households a week"
R2-01 Margit: replace with "around 280 households a week", with the comment "Register average Jul-Sep is 281."
Why they cannot both be done: two different figures for the same words. Status: Open.
C2. 5. Next quarter: "and begin a pilot with two schools"
R1-05 Kofi: remove the words, with the comment "Schools pilot is not confirmed yet."
R2-04 Margit: comment "Keep this in. The funder asked about schools last quarter."
Why they cannot both be done: one removes the words the other asks to keep. Status: Open.
Checklist by section
1. Summary
R1-01 Kofi · replacement · Place: exact
Base: "around 300 households a week"
Replace with: "about 320 households a week"
Clash: C1 · Watch: figure
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R2-01 Margit · replacement · Place: exact
Base: "around 300 households a week"
Replace with: "around 280 households a week"
Reviewer's comment: "Register average Jul-Sep is 281." · Clash: C1 · Watch: figure
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R3-01 Theo · note · Place: section only
Base: no exact words given
Note: "The summary should open with the Saturday distribution. It's the headline."
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
2. Meals and families served
R1-02 Kofi · comment · Place: exact
Base: "our highest share yet"
Comment: "Can we say why? The new grower partnership."
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R1-03 Kofi · check by hand · Place: section only
Base: no exact words given
What the input shows: "[chart]"
Check by hand: the export shows the change only as "[chart]", and the base text supplied has no chart in words
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
3. Volunteers
R1-04 Kofi · insertion · Place: exact
Base: "We trained 18 new shift leads."
Insert: "Volunteer turnover fell to 9 per cent."
Position: not stated · Watch: figure
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R3-02 Theo · note · Place: section only
Base: no exact words given
Note: "In the volunteers section, add a line thanking the shift leads."
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
4. Spending against the grant
R2-02 Margit · replacement · Place: exact
Base: "$48,200"
Replace with: "$48,650"
Watch: amount
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R2-03 Margit · replacement · Place: exact
Base: "The $3,800 underspend"
Replace with: "The $3,350 underspend"
Reviewer's comment: "Late invoice from the van lease posted 10 Oct." · Watch: amount
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R3-03 Theo · note · Place: near
Base: "The $3,800 underspend comes from a delayed refrigeration repair, now booked for October."
Note: "In the spending section, say the refrigeration repair is booked for 21 October, not just October."
Watch: date
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
5. Next quarter
R1-05 Kofi · deletion · Place: exact
Base: "and begin a pilot with two schools"
Remove: "and begin a pilot with two schools"
Reviewer's comment: "Schools pilot is not confirmed yet." · Clash: C2 · Watch: promise about future work · Owner to confirm who signs this off.
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
R2-04 Margit · comment · Place: exact
Base: "begin a pilot with two schools"
Comment: "Keep this in. The funder asked about schools last quarter."
Clash: C2
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
Not placed: 1
R1-06 Kofi · comment · Not found in the base
Anchor given: "Table 1: households by area", under "Table 1"
Comment: "Table 1 numbers need updating for September."
Status: Open. Owner's note: none
Check by hand: 1
R1-03: the export shows a change in section 2, Meals and families served, only as "[chart]"; open Kofi's marked-up copy to see it.
Watch items: 7
R1-01: figure
R1-04: figure
R1-05: promise about future work
R2-01: figure
R2-02: amount
R2-03: amount
R3-03: date
Agreements: none
Edits the owner accepted, to make in the base: none yet
Resolution list only. Nothing in Funder report: July to September 2026 has been edited, accepted, declined or merged, and nothing has been sent.
Every item traces to a row in one of the two exports or a line of Theo's email, and every base quotation is in version 3 as supplied. What happens next is Ines's: she decides each item, makes the edits in version 3 herself and replies to her reviewers.
Where it fits
- Executive and office support: the assistant or office manager who gathers everyone's comments on a board paper, a policy summary or a leader's report.
- Project and delivery: plans and reports that go round the whole project team before the client sees them.
- Professional services: client reports and proposals reviewed by a partner, a specialist and a manager at once.
- Engineering firms: technical reports where a changed figure or date matters as much as the wording.
- Nonprofits: funder reports and applications read by programme, finance and board members before the deadline.
- Established businesses: standing documents revised every year by the same circle of reviewers.
What has to change for your company
Set your watch list: the kinds of change that always need a second look in your documents, such as prices, client names or headline figures. Decide whether reviewers appear by name or by role when the list is shared. If your document tool exports comments under other column names, change the defaults once in the template. Agree who signs off a change to a commitment, a price or a statement to a regulator. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini; check whether your product reads tracked changes directly or needs an export, and decide which documents it may be given.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example on 10 November 2026 in three runs; the instructions were revised after the first and amended slightly after review, and the record of the third is published with it. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on two or three past documents whose review rounds you remember, plus hard cases written in advance: two reviewers who change the same figure differently, a comment on a section that was deleted, a change inside a chart, an export with different column names. The owner checks every item against the reviewers' copies before relying on the list. Pilot acceptance-test preparation sets those cases up, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Bring a real piece of this work to a call. We’ll walk through what it takes to fit this capability to your rules, prove it on your work and put it in the hands of the roles that own it.