A demonstration shows what an AI workflow can do on the example in front of you. The decision to use it needs more: a clear standard, a useful range of cases and someone who knows whether the result is fit for the job.
We call this the best-person check. Build from the way your team does its best work, then judge the workflow against that standard. The expert may bring a written SOP, a checklist or knowledge they've never documented. Their past work helps make the requirements concrete.
Write down what makes the result good.
“As good as our best person” is a useful ambition. It becomes testable when you name the details: the required fields, the sources they come from, the exceptions that change the answer and the decisions that need a person.
Agree those details before building. A result can differ in wording from a past example and still meet the standard. A fluent draft can also fail because it omits something essential. The check needs to distinguish the two.
Separate three questions: does the workflow start on the right kind of input, does it produce correct work, and does using it improve the whole job? Each deserves its own evidence.
Choose cases that can expose a miss.
Ordinary examples establish the basics. Difficult ones test whether the instructions cover the real work: incomplete records, unusual formats, conflicting information and requests that should be referred to a person. Keep some cases separate from the examples used during the build.
Illustrative example: a court-order notice.
A notice workflow needs to handle a directive buried in a long paragraph and a scan with an unreadable page. The first tests whether it captures the whole instruction. The second tests whether it makes the gap visible. Reading a smooth draft alone may miss both problems; checking against the source and expected result brings them into view.
For a weekly matter review, test coverage as well as findings. The output should identify what it assessed, what was excluded and which matters it could not assess. An empty exception list means little if half the records were missing.
Let your expert judge real work.
We build and test with invented examples, then observe your own person running real cases in your account. Your expert marks the results against the agreed standard, and every miss remains visible.
The build and grading are separate steps. Where a grading rule and your expert disagree, record the disagreement and examine it together. It may reveal a bad result, missing information or a criterion that needs to be clearer. Your expert has the final say.
Use the findings to make a decision.
Passing the test set gives you evidence about those cases. Handover notes should explain the supported scope, where a person takes over and how to handle a failure. Regular use still includes review.
Then measure the whole job: preparing inputs, running the workflow, reviewing, correcting and acting. A faster draft is valuable when it improves the work overall. The test log and that practical measure tell you where to use the workflow and what to improve next.
Five questions worth asking.
- Who agreed the standard, and what makes a result good?
- Which cases were held back from the build?
- Who grades the output, and who has the final say?
- Will we see omissions and uncertain results alongside the passes?
- What did the workflow change about the whole job?