Document workflows
Drafting, revision, and audience fit
Revise a usable draft while preserving its source facts and the requester’s limits.
Lesson 3 of 6 in the recommended order · About 25 min (estimate)
On this page
Practical AI glossary — terms and common confusions
- Model
- A learned component used to produce a result.
A drafting model is one part of a letter app; it is not the whole app.
- Application
- The software experience around components and services.
A letter app adds accounts, storage, and a Send button.
- Prompt
- Instructions and input supplied for a task.
“Summarize this notice in two bullets” specifies a task and shape, not a truth guarantee.
- Token
- A unit a model processes; it need not be a whole word.
A tokenizer can split a name into pieces; count using the actual system.
- Context
- Information available for the current request.
An earlier attachment may be absent even when its filename is visible.
- Training
- Adjusting a model using examples.
A training log differs from a conversation correction.
- Inference
- Using a trained model to produce a result.
Drafting another sentence does not by itself prove retraining.
- Retrieval
- Selecting material to supply to a task.
A retrieved notice still needs a relevance and date check.
- Embedding
- A numerical representation used to compare or organize items.
A similar search match is a candidate, not proof of the same meaning.
- Tool
- A function an application can call.
A calendar lookup can be read-only; finding an event is different from creating one.
- Agent
- Software that can choose and carry out steps toward a goal.
An agent still needs bounded permissions and checked action receipts.
- Hallucination
- Plausible generated content that is unsupported or false.
An invented opening time needs evidence or removal, even when phrased confidently.
- Evaluation
- Checking results against stated criteria.
Twenty checked examples establish a bounded result, not universal reliability.
- Multimodal
- Working with more than one kind of input or output.
A photo plus text does not prove every small label in the photo was read correctly.
Outcome
Why it matters
Revise a usable draft while preserving its source facts and the requester’s limits.
Concept
Begin with a brief and a fact bank. Draft for the reader’s purpose, then review separately for accuracy and usability. A style revision should not quietly change claims. When feedback requests one improvement, preserve other requirements unless they are explicitly changed.
Explain material edits in a short change note: what changed and which source or requirement justified it. Several valid drafts may satisfy the same brief. Avoid polishing indefinitely when the required facts, tone, and structure already work. An uncertain fact should remain uncertain even in persuasive writing.
Worked example
Cedar asks for a calm invitation using the approved date, but registration is still pending. An engaging draft that says “Your place is guaranteed” invents a promise. Repair that claim and retain the welcome. A correct simple invitation can be accepted without adding dramatic language.
Cedar continuity note: these lessons use separate snapshots—room selection, booking pending, booking confirmed, and later attendance review. Survey responses are preferences, not attendance. Each supplied packet identifies the facts for its own task; do not import a later snapshot into an earlier decision.
Before you check
Draft a short message from a supplied packet, then write a two-line change note distinguishing a factual repair from an optional style edit.
Practice and fresh transfer
The packets below are fictional and contain the facts needed for these cases. External references are optional background. Judge each response independently: it may be supported, contradicted, or unresolved. Select the passages needed to justify your judgment and write why the distinction matters before revealing feedback.
Assess the response
Use Accept when all material claims are supported. Use Revise when a supplied fact or requirement is contradicted. Use Evidence is insufficient when a key fact cannot be established either way. If a response contains both an unknown and a direct contradiction, choose Revise and explain both problems. Conflicting claims with no established authority remain insufficient; a claim does not become a governing fact merely because a source asserts it.
Some responses are fully supported. Others need correction or more evidence. Judge each on its sources; do not edit a correct answer just to change it.
Your written notes stay in this page and disappear when you leave. Only a self-reviewed completion can be saved to your learning account. These practice checks do not establish independent proficiency.
Practice
Case 1
Consider the proposed response for this fictional Cedar work task. Use the supplied packet and stated requirements.
Source packet
- Source 1
- Brief: Calm invitation; state 14 October in Hall C and ask readers to register. Do not guarantee a place.
- Source 2
- Approved facts: Workshop 14 October, Hall C; registration required.
Response to assess
You are invited to the workshop on 14 October in Hall C. Please register to request a place.
Practice
Case 2
Consider the proposed response for this fictional Cedar work task. Use the supplied packet and stated requirements.
Source packet
- Source 1
- Original facts: Meeting 2 p.m., Room 8.
- Source 2
- Feedback: Make the wording shorter; retain time and room.
Response to assess
Meet at 3 p.m. in Room 8.
Fresh transfer
Case 3
Consider a fictional revision note for a public announcement.
Source packet
- Source 1
- Approved update: Entry is free for members; visitors pay $4.
- Source 2
- Old draft: Entry is free for everyone.
Response to assess
Changed “everyone” to the member condition and added the $4 visitor charge to match the approved update.
Fresh transfer
Case 4
Consider a fictional claim added to a persuasive brochure.
Source packet
- Source 1
- Fact bank: The workshop has three sessions and a supplied workbook.
- Source 2
- Evidence record: No outcome evaluation or participant success data is included.
Response to assess
The workshop will double every participant’s productivity.
Save your self-review
Completion records that you reviewed the cases. Your explanation and transfer performance need a facilitator to establish independent learning.
Sign in with your learning-center account to save completion.
Review the explanation for every case before saving.
Summary and next step
Apply the checklist to a new task. Preserve supported content, explain any change with evidence, and name what remains unresolved. Saving records self-review, not independently demonstrated proficiency. A facilitator must assess the explanation and fresh transfer for human learning evidence.