What should reviewers check in an agent's generated follow-up message?

Apply this checklist after establishing that the follow-up action itself is permitted.

- Identify the correct outstanding obligation. - State only facts supported by visible records. - Describe precisely what response is needed. - Avoid inventing consequences or commitments. - Keep unrelated account details out of the message. - Match the recipient's authorised information scope. - Use wording consistent with the case status.

An authorised message can still be operationally poor. In professional services, a request for an overdue approval should identify the decision awaiting approval. A vague request to respond may leave the recipient unable to act, while an invented claim that work will be cancelled introduces a consequence the records do not support.

MirrorFirm could generate communication briefs with evidence-linked criteria and examples of specific content failures. A reseller can ask for separate judgements on factual support, completeness of the request and clarity, so customers can diagnose what needs improvement.

Reviewers should not reward extra detail simply because it sounds helpful. The strongest message contains enough supported information to enable the required response. It does not expand the obligation, expose another case or imply authority that the sending role lacks.