Sample deliverables
See what you get.
A useful review gives you something to work with: a priority, an improvement brief or a decision you can make.
These are fictional examples of the format and thinking. They are not client work, measured findings or promised results.
01 / Sample deliverable · Fictional example
An opportunity map
with a starting point.
A fictional operations team wants to improve its daily briefing. The map separates a useful first experiment from work that needs more investigation.
- Start here
- Check which source notes are complete, current and approved for use.
- Test next
- Try a draft briefing using sample notes. Compare the output with an agreed checklist.
- Keep conditional
- Consider system integration only after the workflow and its checking process are useful.
Your output connects each opportunity to supporting evidence, dependencies and a proposed next action.
Explore the Opportunity Snapshot Discuss your workflowInspect the sample · fictional evidence throughout
01 · Make the source notes usable
- Evidence
- Fictional input: three briefing notes use different headings. One has no owner or update date, so its status cannot be established.
- Priority
- First — source quality is a dependency for any useful briefing draft. Benefit remains unmeasured.
- Recommendation
- Use a shared note structure: topic, change, source, owner and last update. Flag missing information rather than filling gaps.
- Next action
- Operations owner: prepare a small approved set of notes and resolve any unknown status before testing a draft.
- How to check
- Every briefing statement should link to a current source. Missing or conflicting information should be visible to the reviewer.
02 · Test the briefing before connecting systems
- Evidence
- Fictional input: the team copies approved notes into a briefing manually. No representative AI output or exception test is available yet.
- Priority
- Test next — potentially useful, but dependent on source readiness and a named reviewer.
- Recommendation
- Trial a draft-only briefing in an existing approved tool. Keep distribution under human control.
- Next action
- Team lead: compare a sample draft with the source notes, including a deliberately incomplete note. Record omissions and corrections.
- How to check
- Only consider integration after the team can explain the checks, handle exceptions and show why the workflow is worth adopting.
02 / Sample deliverable · Fictional example
A finding your team
can act on.
In this fictional service website, the next step is hard to find and the enquiry form asks for information the team does not yet need.
- Observation
- The main action sits below the opening content on a phone. The form requires a full project specification.
- Suggested change
- Show a clear enquiry action earlier. Begin with contact details and a short description of the challenge.
- How to check
- Test the route on a phone, including form errors, confirmation and receipt by the right person.
Your review pairs annotated evidence with the likely customer difficulty, priority and an improvement brief.
Explore the website review Discuss your websiteInspect the sample · fictional evidence throughout
Finding W01 · The first enquiry is too demanding
- Evidence
- Fictional mobile journey: the enquiry action follows several content sections, and the form makes a full project specification compulsory. No funnel data is supplied.
- Priority
- High — affects the main enquiry route. This is a usability hypothesis, not evidence of lost sales.
- Recommendation
- Place a clear enquiry action beside the opening proposition. Ask first for contact details and a short description of the challenge.
- Next action
- Website owner: agree the minimum information needed to respond, then brief the designer and developer using this finding.
- How to check
- Try the full journey on a phone and with a keyboard: submit, correct an error, receive confirmation and confirm receipt by the intended person.
Finding W02 · Define a useful measurement
- Evidence
- Fictional measurement review: page visits are recorded, but the supplied report does not distinguish form starts from successful enquiries.
- Priority
- Supporting — needed to assess the change without treating every click as an enquiry.
- Recommendation
- Agree what counts as a successful enquiry and record submission only after confirmed acceptance.
- Next action
- Website and analytics owners: check the event definition, consent requirements and a test submission before comparing periods.
- How to check
- A rejected or failed form must not count as a successful enquiry. Interpret subsequent data in the context of traffic volume and quality.
03 / Sample deliverable · Fictional example
A decision brief
with conditions.
A fictional business is deciding whether to replace a scheduling tool. The brief makes the options, missing evidence and next decision visible.
- The choice
- Adapt the existing tool, or move to a new platform with a data migration and team handover.
- Provisional view
- Test the current tool against the essential workflow before committing to replacement.
- Before approval
- Demonstrate exception handling, confirm a usable data export and establish who will own support.
Your brief distinguishes evidence from assumptions and records the recommendation, trade-offs and decision owner.
Explore a technology second opinion Discuss your decisionInspect the sample · fictional evidence throughout
Decision D01 · Adapt or replace the scheduling tool?
- Evidence
- Fictional evidence pack: the supplier proposal covers routine bookings. It does not demonstrate exception handling or a usable export. The existing tool has not been tested against agreed requirements.
- Priority
- Resolve before commitment — the missing evidence could materially affect the choice.
- Recommendation
- Keep both options open. Test the essential workflow in the current tool and require the proposed platform to demonstrate the same scenarios.
- Next action
- Decision owner: agree must-have scenarios with operations, then ask each option owner for a demonstration and written limitations.
- How to check
- Record pass, fail or unknown for each scenario. Do not turn an unanswered question into a scored capability.
Decision D02 · Conditions for a recommendation
- Evidence
- Fictional comparison: adapting may reduce migration work but retain current constraints; replacing may offer new capabilities but introduces data and adoption dependencies. Neither cost case is validated.
- Priority
- Decision condition — establish ownership, migration feasibility and support before approving either route.
- Recommendation
- Recommend a route only after the essential scenarios, total cost assumptions and exit conditions have been checked.
- Next action
- Sponsor: name the support owner, request an export sample and confirm the implementation responsibilities and recurring charges.
- How to check
- The final brief should distinguish verified evidence, assumptions and open questions, with a recorded decision and any conditions attached.
04 / Sample deliverable · Fictional example
A workflow the team
can check and own.
A fictional operations team prepares an internal briefing from approved notes. The handover defines permitted inputs, review checks and what to do when a draft is unreliable.
The review identifies the opportunity and adoption plan. Workflow configuration and this handover are included with enablement, after feasibility is agreed.
Explore AI review & enablement Discuss your workflowFictional handover / A01
Internal briefing draft
- Input
- Approved notes with source references
- Output
- Draft briefing, gaps and conflicts
- Owner
- Operations lead, with a named backup
- Approval
- Human check before distribution
Inspect the sample · fictional evidence throughout
Workflow A01 · Draft an internal operations briefing
- Evidence
- Fictional workflow brief: approved notes are the only permitted input. The AI may organise and summarise them; the operations owner remains responsible for accuracy and distribution.
- Priority
- Review gate — agree the boundary and data permissions before configuration. Handover belongs to the enablement option.
- Recommendation
- Produce a draft with a source reference for each statement, followed by missing information and conflicting notes. Do not invent an answer or send the briefing automatically.
- Next action
- Workflow owner: approve the source set and reviewer checklist. Tool owner: confirm the proposed setup is feasible in the existing approved tool.
- How to check
- Use routine, incomplete and conflicting inputs. Confirm that unsupported content is flagged and that the reviewer can trace each statement.
Handover A02 · Review, stop and recover
- Evidence
- Fictional handover entry: an incomplete source note should produce an explicit gap. A draft that presents the gap as a fact must be rejected.
- Priority
- Required before use — a named person must be able to check the output and stop the workflow.
- Recommendation
- Keep the human approval step. Stop on missing permissions, unexplained claims or conflicting sources; return to the manual briefing process.
- Next action
- Team lead: rehearse the exception with the team, assign a backup reviewer and record where corrections and setup changes are logged.
- How to check
- Handover is ready when the team can run a representative example, reject a faulty draft and explain who owns future changes. This sample does not claim those checks passed.
05 / Sample deliverable · Fictional example
A session that leaves
a practical next step.
A fictional team practises drafting from approved notes, spots unsupported claims and agrees what it needs to check before a pilot.
This excerpt shows one exercise and the action-plan format. A commissioned session includes three worked examples tailored to the agreed priorities.
Explore the AI working session Discuss your team’s prioritiesFictional session pack / S01
Draft. Check. Decide.
- Read the approved sample notes.
- Draft with source references and visible gaps.
- Check claims against the original notes.
- Record the owner and conditions for a next step.
Inspect the sample · fictional evidence throughout
Exercise S01 · Turn approved notes into a draft
- Evidence
- Fictional exercise pack: participants receive approved sample notes with a missing update date and two conflicting statements. No client material is used.
- Priority
- Learn the checking process — a fluent answer is insufficient if participants cannot identify gaps.
- Recommendation
- Ask for a short draft with source references and a separate list of uncertainties. Compare the output with the notes using a shared checklist.
- Next action
- Participants: mark unsupported claims, missing context and useful wording. Discuss which parts require human judgement before reworking the prompt.
- How to check
- Each participant should be able to explain why a draft is ready for review or should be rejected. No workflow is configured as part of this exercise.
Action plan S02 · Choose one responsible next step
- Evidence
- Fictional session record: briefing drafts are selected as a possible pilot. Tool permissions, a process owner and an agreed source set remain unconfirmed.
- Priority
- Prepare first — interest in the exercise does not establish readiness to use live information.
- Recommendation
- Assign an owner to confirm the tool, approved inputs and reviewer before testing the task further.
- Next action
- Team sponsor: record the proposed task, owner, dependencies and review point in the action plan. Scope any workflow enablement separately.
- How to check
- At the review point, decide whether to continue, adjust or stop using observed draft quality and the effort required to check it. Do not assume a saving.