I developed this lesson to help experienced employees draft workplace instructions with AI and check them against source documents. It draws on my work documenting operational processes and has been rolled out in a workplace. The portfolio version uses fictional examples to preserve confidentiality.
I designed the instruction and practice in Articulate, then directed Claude to convert the completed material into HTML for my portfolio.
Analysis: defining the task
AI can organize supplied documents into a draft, but the employee remains responsible for deciding which requirements apply and whether the instructions represent them accurately. I developed a repeatable procedure for reviewing that draft before others use it, drawing on my documentation experience rather than a formal study of workplace AI errors.
The intended audience is experienced employees whose knowledge of the work helps them judge the instructions. Familiar administrative tasks keep the portfolio examples accessible, allowing learners to focus on reviewing documentary evidence.
Design: connecting prompts with source review
The lesson follows the workflow from preparing documents through reviewing the draft. Prompting guidance uses Microsoft’s four elements: goal, context, source, and expectations. I added directions for identifying the governing document and flagging questions the sources cannot resolve.
Each example addresses a different review problem:
| Example | Review problem | What learners practice |
|---|---|---|
| Expense claims | An older document conflicts with current policy. | Establish which source governs and verify that the draft follows it. |
| Room bookings | The draft adds a limit absent from the source. | Check whether the cited document supports the instruction. |
| Leave requests | The draft omits a required step. | Read the source independently and check that its requirements appear in the draft. |
The leave example makes a crucial distinction: checking each sentence for accuracy can still miss something the draft never mentions. The review procedure therefore includes a separate check for omissions.
Development: building the lesson and job aid
I wrote fictional source documents and introduced deliberate errors into draft instructions. A lost-ID-badge exercise gives learners a new procedure to review, with feedback explaining how to identify and correct the errors.
The accompanying job aid combines a prompt template with the review procedure so employees can use the method while working.
After completing the lesson in Articulate, I supplied the content to Claude for conversion into HTML. I reviewed the browser version and revised wording where the new page layout separated explanations from their examples; the instructional content remained substantially unchanged.
Implementation and evaluation
The lesson has been rolled out in a workplace. I have kept the organization and rollout details anonymous, and the public version uses fictional documents rather than internal materials.
Evaluation remains pending. I plan to assess whether employees can apply the job aid to an unfamiliar procedure, using their reviewed drafts to examine how they catch errors and omissions. Their explanations would also show how they handle questions the documents cannot resolve. Assessing effects on published workplace instructions would require evidence from subsequent use.
Lessons learned
- Keep background proportional to the task. I shortened fictional policies after finding that learners had too much procedural detail to absorb before beginning the review.
- Check completeness separately from accuracy. Developing the leave example exposed a gap in my initial method, prompting me to add an independent review of the source requirements.
- Review meaning after changing formats. The HTML conversion separated some examples from their explanations, requiring editorial changes to keep the lesson understandable.