BACKGROUND
This project was a human-in-the-loop example showing the editing process for one AI-assisted blog post with full annotations explaining every editorial decision. The goal was to demonstrate the gap between an AI draft that will not embarrass the brand and a piece that is genuinely good enough to publish.
I structured the document as a section-by-section comparison of the AI draft and the edited version, with an editorial note for each change explaining what was wrong with the original and what the rewrite was trying to achieve. The examples covered a generic opener replaced with a specific provocation, a vague heading turned into an argument, a body paragraph where an unverified statistic was flagged and removed, and a conclusion that returned to the piece's central idea rather than summarizing it.
The result was a reference document that made the standards for AI-assisted content tangible rather than abstract, showing the specific decisions that separate adequate content from content worth reading.
