Move from brief to sources, draft, factual review and final formatting. Keep a record of important decisions rather than chasing a human-sounding score.
A useful workflow makes mistakes easier to find. It does not depend on a fixed ratio of human and AI work, and it cannot guarantee traffic or detector results.
Write the brief before the draft
Define the reader, question, intended answer and limits. List facts that are known, sources that are approved and uncertainties that must remain visible.
Build and check the evidence
Open primary sources and record which claims they support. Treat generated citations as unverified until you have checked them. Remove unsupported measurements and testimonials instead of polishing them into convincing prose.
Draft in small sections
Ask for an outline or a bounded section. Compare the result with the brief before expanding it. This makes it easier to spot a changed assumption than reviewing a long, fluent draft all at once.
An example handoff
“Explain what the blank-line rule does, show a harmless sample, and state that editor paragraph spacing is separate.” The instruction defines both the useful answer and its boundary.
Run two different reviews
First check facts, quotations, examples and qualifications. Then review clarity, tone and structure. A stylistic improvement must not override the factual review.
Google's generative AI guidance also calls attention to reviewing titles, descriptions and other generated page elements.
Format and publish deliberately
Remove unwanted copied markup with the local formatting cleaner, then inspect the destination preview. For whitespace-specific changes, use the spacing cleaner with only the needed rules.
Keep the source draft and a note of significant revisions. Record the actual publication decision and correction path. Formatting is a final presentation step, not proof that the content is accurate, original or written without assistance.