Can you send this AI-drafted approval brief?
The internal AI assistant has drafted a rollout brief for the CEO.
The question
Kestrel Workflows is a fictional US-based B2B software company. Use only this case packet.
Finance, Legal and Operations have approved the full rollout. We recommend proceeding.
- FinanceThe cost estimate has not been accepted.
- LegalWe can review the proposed terms next week.
- OperationsWe support a pilot only.
The CEO approves any full rollout. A named human reviewer must check the source record before this brief is released. The assistant is approved for this internal packet.
“Choose your next move and explain the decision it supports.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Decide whether the draft is ready
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Send it because the wording is clear
Tempting, but it misses something. Clear wording does not establish a true approval.
Check the three approvals before sending
The strong move. A confident summary can still misstate the decision record.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Hold the brief. The claimed full-rollout approval is unsupported by the source notes.”
Why it works: A confident summary can still misstate the decision record.
Step 2: Repair the decision record
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep each function’s actual position
The strong move. A pilot endorsement is not full-rollout approval.
Treat the pilot endorsement as consensus
Tempting, but it misses something. It changes the scope of what was endorsed.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Finance has an open cost question, Legal has a future review, and Operations supports only a pilot. No function has approved the full rollout.”
Why it works: A pilot endorsement is not full-rollout approval.
Step 3: Update: the assistant adds “This will save 20% of staff time” without a source
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Call 20% a conservative forecast
Tempting, but it misses something. There is no evidence that makes this estimate conservative.
Remove the unsupported estimate
The strong move. The packet provides neither a baseline nor a measured saving.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Remove the saving claim. Ask for a defined measurement before using a number in the recommendation.”
Why it works: The packet provides neither a baseline nor a measured saving.
Step 4: Release a decision-ready version
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Separate review responsibility from decision authority
The strong move. The human reviewer owns the brief; the CEO owns the rollout decision.
Let the assistant mark the decision approved
Tempting, but it misses something. The case rule reserves approval for the CEO.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Have the named reviewer check the correction. Ask the CEO for the next scoped decision and show the remaining Finance and Legal work.”
Why it works: The human reviewer owns the brief; the CEO owns the rollout decision.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Release only a checked brief that preserves the open decisions.
- Because
- None of the three source notes approves a full rollout, and the saving claim has no evidence.
- What would change it
- Recorded approvals or a measured result would change what the brief can state.
Common traps
- A polished update does not replace an agreed decision and owner.
Check your answer
- I checked the original notes.
- I preserved the scope of each endorsement.
- I removed the unsupported saving.
- I named the reviewer and decision owner.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026