What should a lab inspect before accepting generated correction material?

Use this checklist to review a candidate release before admitting it to a training or evaluation pipeline.

- Request a description of how business observations inform generation and which aspects remain modelling choices. - Inspect whether generated narratives contain unusually specific combinations of events or attributes requiring further review. - Check for unintended names, contact details, account references or copied passages in text fields and attachments. - Review whether exceptions follow the supplied policy instead of relying on undocumented business assumptions. - Compare source evidence, adjustment rationale and case outcome for contradictions that a fluent narrative could conceal. - Record review findings, unresolved questions and exclusions against the release identifier.

The commercial output is generated material. That description does not, by itself, settle disclosure risk or determine whether a lab should use a release for a particular purpose. Grounding documentation and content inspection serve different roles and should be considered together.

A useful acceptance review can reject a plausible case because its provenance is insufficiently explained, or reject a well-documented case because its business logic is inconsistent. Keeping those findings separate makes remediation more precise.