Workplace decision-making
Should You Trust This AI Output?
A short AI literacy scenario for workplace decision-making.
AI Literacy Scenario
Screen 1 of 11
Your role
Reviewing employee feedback
You are a manager reviewing open-ended employee feedback about a new hybrid work policy. You ask an AI tool to summarize the responses before presenting themes to leadership.
Task context
Leadership needs a fair, accurate summary that represents the full range of employee experience.
AI-generated summary
What the tool says
“Employees are overwhelmingly satisfied with the hybrid work policy. Most feedback indicates that flexibility has improved morale, productivity, and work-life balance. There are no major concerns that require leadership attention.”
Apply the verification steps you learned: compare the AI claim to the original source comments before deciding whether to share it.
Quick lesson
AI mistakes can sound confident
Generative AI often produces fluent, polished text. That polish can hide problems. Before using AI-generated workplace content, pause and look for these warning signs.
Practice move: compare the AI summary to the original source comments. Look for what is overstated, missing, or ethically risky.
Scaffold
Use a three-step verification method
Before you decide whether an AI summary is usable, slow the task down. You are not just proofreading. You are checking whether the AI represented the source fairly.
-
1
Compare claims to evidence
Find the strongest claims in the AI output, then look for matching evidence in the original comments.
-
2
Look for what is missing
Notice comments, groups, risks, or exceptions that do not appear in the AI summary.
-
3
Decide the right human action
Choose whether to accept, revise, verify further, or reject the output based on accuracy, context, bias, and ethical risk.
Downloaded survey file
Original employee comments
Hybrid Work Policy Pulse Survey - Open Responses
As you compare the AI summary to the source comments, you notice concerns about unequal access, unclear expectations, and burnout.
Question for you: What biases or inaccuracies do you notice in the AI summary after reading the original comments?
Reflection
Name the bias or inaccuracy
Compare the AI summary with the original survey comments. Then write what you notice before seeing the guided answer.
Initial AI summary
“Employees are overwhelmingly satisfied with the hybrid work policy. Most feedback indicates that flexibility has improved morale, productivity, and work-life balance. There are no major concerns that require leadership attention.”
Original survey comments
R-014
The flexibility has helped me manage appointments and focused work. I feel more trusted, and I am getting more done on writing-heavy days.
R-027
Hybrid work is positive overall, but access is uneven. Some teams can work remotely three days a week while frontline and lab staff have very little flexibility.
R-031
I like not commuting every day, but expectations are unclear. My manager says one thing, project leads say another, and meetings keep getting scheduled on remote focus days.
R-046
Morale is better for my group. People seem calmer when they can choose where they do their best work.
R-052
Burnout is still a concern. Because everyone is online at different times, the workday feels longer and messages come in before breakfast and after dinner.
R-063
The policy is good in theory, but people with caregiving responsibilities are being judged for using flexibility more visibly than others.
R-071
Productivity improved for individual tasks, but collaboration norms are confusing. We need clearer guidance on when in-person work is actually required.
R-088
I appreciate the option to work from home, but it does not feel equally available across departments, and that is starting to affect trust.
Please enter a response before comparing with the guided diagnosis.
Your response is for practice only. In a real workplace review, this note could guide what you verify or revise before sharing AI-generated analysis.
Guided practice
What problems did you find?
Use the evidence from the survey comments to name the issues in the AI summary before deciding what action to take.
The summary overstates satisfaction
Positive comments exist, but the source does not support “overwhelmingly satisfied” or “no major concerns.”
The summary omits important concerns
Comments mention unequal access, unclear expectations, confusing collaboration norms, and burnout.
The summary could mislead leadership
If shared as-is, it could minimize employee risk and hide inequities across roles, departments, and caregiving needs.
Now you have enough evidence to choose the most responsible next step.
Decision point
What should you do before sharing this AI summary with leadership?
Feedback
Revision step
Revise the output before sharing
After checking the source comments, the employee revises the AI summary so it more accurately reflects the survey results.
Initial AI output
Employees are overwhelmingly satisfied with the hybrid work policy. Most feedback indicates that flexibility has improved morale, productivity, and work-life balance. There are no major concerns that require leadership attention.
- Overgeneralizes positive comments.
- Leaves out concerns from the source comments.
- Could mislead leadership about risk.
Revised employee output
Employee feedback on the hybrid work policy is mixed but generally supportive. Many employees value the flexibility and report benefits for focus, morale, and work-life balance. However, several comments raise concerns about unequal access across roles and departments, unclear expectations for in-person work, meeting norms, and signs of burnout from extended availability. Leadership should address these concerns before treating the policy as fully successful.
- Adds nuance and avoids unsupported certainty.
- Names specific concerns found in the survey.
- Gives leadership a responsible next step.
Final takeaway
Before You Trust AI Output
- ✓Compare the output to the source material.
- ✓Look for missing context or overgeneralization.
- ✓Check for bias, tone issues, or unsupported claims.
- ✓Decide whether human expertise is required.
- ✓Revise or reject the output when needed.
The flexibility has helped me manage appointments and focused work. I feel more trusted, and I am getting more done on writing-heavy days.
Hybrid work is positive overall, but access is uneven. Some teams can work remotely three days a week while frontline and lab staff have very little flexibility.
I like not commuting every day, but expectations are unclear. My manager says one thing, project leads say another, and meetings keep getting scheduled on remote focus days.
Morale is better for my group. People seem calmer when they can choose where they do their best work.
Burnout is still a concern. Because everyone is online at different times, the workday feels longer and messages come in before breakfast and after dinner.
The policy is good in theory, but people with caregiving responsibilities are being judged for using flexibility more visibly than others.
Productivity improved for individual tasks, but collaboration norms are confusing. We need clearer guidance on when in-person work is actually required.
I appreciate the option to work from home, but it does not feel equally available across departments, and that is starting to affect trust.