AI Enablement

Proof without testimonials

Sample Deliverables

These are representative excerpts of the artifacts your team receives. Every engagement is customized to your tools, roles, and workflows — these samples show the format and depth you can expect.

No fabricated case studies. No invented logos. Just tangible work product you can evaluate before buying.

What success looks like

30 days after your engagement

Consistent prompts

Your team uses a shared prompt library with placeholders, not one-off trial-and-error.

Fewer rewrites

Structured prompts + verification steps catch errors before output leaves the team.

Approved use-cases

A clear list of what AI is used for—and what it isn’t used for—agreed on and documented.

Human review habit

Every external-facing AI output goes through a consistent verification step before sending.

Deliverable 1

AI Operating System Kit — Sample Excerpt

Included in every Workshop and Sprint engagement. A team-facing reference document covering safe-use rules, output verification habits, and role-specific boundaries.

AI Rules of the Road (excerpt)

  • ✓ Sanitize inputs — remove names, account numbers, proprietary data before prompting
  • ✓ Label all AI-drafted outputs “AI draft — not reviewed” until verified
  • ✓ Never send AI output directly to a customer or executive without human review
  • ✓ If the AI confidently states a fact you can't verify, treat it as unknown
  • ✗ No AI access to live production systems or authenticated integrations

Full version: See public sample

Verification Checklist (Send-Safe)

  • ☐ Factual claims verified (names, dates, numbers, policies)
  • ☐ Invented specifics removed or replaced with placeholders
  • ☐ Sensitive data removed before prompt and from output
  • ☐ Tone matches audience and purpose
  • ☐ Links/references checked
  • ☐ Final read-through completed by a human before sending

Approved Use-Case Library (sample rows)

Draft internal status update

Safe ✓ — sanitize project names → review → send

Summarize meeting notes

Safe ✓ — remove attendee names → review format

Draft customer email response

Safe with review ☐ — verify policy accuracy + tone

Escalation + Boundary Rules

  • Escalate if: AI output involves legal language or compliance claims
  • Escalate if: Customer is in a sensitive state (loss, dispute, complaint)
  • Escalate if: AI confidence is high but human can't verify the claim
  • Escalate if: Output will be published externally without review
Deliverable 2

Tool Fit Matrix — Sample

Delivered in the AI Workflow Audit + Roadmap. Maps your team's actual use-cases to the best-fit AI tool in your approved stack. We recommend, we do not sell software.

Use-Case

Copilot

ChatGPT / Claude

NotebookLM

Draft email from notes (internal)

★★★

★★☆

☆☆☆

Summarize long document

★★☆

★★★

★★★

Answer question from internal KB

★★☆

★☆☆

★★★

Write SOP from rough notes

★★☆

★★★

☆☆☆

Draft support macro

★★☆

★★★

☆☆☆

★★★ = best fit  |  ★★☆ = good with caveats  |  ★☆☆ = use with caution  |  ☆☆☆ = not recommended for this task

Your audit deliverable includes a full matrix scoped to your team's tool access and specific workflow list.

Deliverable 3

Workflow Playbook Sample — Support Macro + KB Flow

One example from a support lane playbook. Each step shows what to input, how to verify, and when to escalate.

1

Classify the ticket

INPUT: Paste raw customer message

PROMPT PATTERN

"Classify this support request: [billing / technical / policy / other]. 1-sentence summary of the issue."

✓ VERIFY: Confirm classification makes sense before routing.

⚠ ESCALATE: If message is emotional, angry, or legal-adjacent — escalate before drafting.

2

Draft initial response

INPUT: Ticket classification + relevant policy snippet (sanitized)

PROMPT PATTERN

"Draft a professional, empathetic response to this [billing/technical/policy] inquiry. Tone: direct, helpful, human. Do not invent policy. Flag anything that needs verification."

✓ VERIFY: Check: policy accuracy, correct contact info, appropriate tone for context.

⚠ ESCALATE: If you cannot verify a policy claim — remove it and note it for a human to add.

3

Create KB article (optional)

INPUT: Resolved ticket + verified answer

PROMPT PATTERN

"Convert this resolved support case into a KB article. Format: Title, Problem statement, Resolution steps, Related links. Mark any steps that require a human to verify before publishing."

✓ VERIFY: Human signs off on resolution steps before publishing.

⚠ ESCALATE: Don't publish AI-drafted KB articles without human review of all factual claims.

Deliverable 4

Adoption Scorecard — Sample Baseline

A lightweight measurement baseline set during the Install Deliverables step. Gives teams a simple way to track whether AI adoption is actually changing how work gets done.

Metric

Baseline

30-Day

90-Day

Draft-to-send time (avg, min)

18 min

Verification step compliance (%)

AI-assisted drafts per week (team)

0

Escalations triggered by AI output

Self-reported confidence (1–5 avg)

2.0

Dashes indicate values to be filled in post-engagement. Baseline is captured during the Install Deliverables step.

Deliverable 5

Use-Case Approval Sheet — Sample Template

A simple one-page template teams use to document, review, and approve each AI use-case before it enters the standard prompt library. One row per use-case.

Use-Case

Safe Inputs

Safe Outputs

Verification Steps

Draft internal status update

Sanitized project notes, no client names or proprietary data

Internal-only draft, not sent externally

Review for accuracy; remove invented numbers

Summarize meeting notes

Sanitized summary (remove attendee names, PII)

Internal summary for team distribution

Check for missed action items; verify owners are correct

Draft customer email response

Ticket text (sanitized); no account numbers or PII

Draft only—always human-reviewed before sending

Verify policy accuracy + tone; check all facts; human sends

Your engagement includes a complete sheet scoped to your team's actual workflow list.

Deliverable 6

Team Prompt Pattern Standard

One-page reference document. Defines the shared prompt structure your team uses so every output is consistent, verifiable, and easy to hand off.

Standard Prompt Structure

Role: You are my [drafting assistant / analyst / summarizer] for [task type].
Context: Audience is [internal / customer / vendor]. Tool: [Copilot / ChatGPT / Claude]. Sensitivity: sanitized.
Task: [1-sentence specific instruction with output format]
Input: [PASTE SANITIZED INPUT HERE]
Verify: List one fact or policy point that must be checked before using this output.

Example: Internal Update

You are my status writer. Convert the following rough notes into a 3-bullet internal update for my manager. Audience: internal. Remove proper names. Input: [PASTE NOTES]

Example: Support Draft

You are my support drafter. Write a 2-paragraph empathetic response to the following ticket. Flag one policy claim I must verify before sending. Input: [PASTE TICKET]

Ready to get the full version?

Every engagement delivers the complete customized artifacts — not excerpts. Start with a free 20-minute discovery call to scope the right fit for your team.