Research is where ChatGPT saves teams the most time, summarising long articles and explaining a topic clearly enough to work from, so I've been looking into the checks teams run to catch inaccurate output before it reaches a client. Most teams land on a targeted check rather than a full one: verify figures, names, dates and sources against an outside reference, and rephrase the prompt with more context when an answer looks off. In G2 reviews, the situations that need the check are niche topics, recent events and answers from an ambiguous prompt, since a wrong detail can arrive in the same confident tone as a correct one.
Among large language models, the deciding factor seems to be what the output is for rather than how good the model is. Drafting, structuring and first-pass research suit it well because a person shapes the result anyway. Anything quoted onward, such as a figure in a client report, is where a check belongs whatever tool produced it.
The situations I'd most like to hear about:
Is your check written down as a step, or does it still depend on who's doing the work?
##### Post Metadata - Posted at: 1 day ago - Author title: Marketing Executive - Net upvotes: 1 ## Comments ### Comment 1 Writing the check as an actual step was our turning point. The summaries and first drafts save hours, and a quick check of sources for figures means we're comfortable using them in client work. ##### Comment Metadata - Posted at: about 7 hours ago - Author title: Marketing Executive ## Related discussions - [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 6 - [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 0 - [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm) - Posted at: over 13 years ago - Comments: 4