Step 8: Review the junior's draft against the lease, not against memory
Technique Verify against the source
Verification against external material: report findings in a change log, change only demonstrable errors, list what was verified, and never let the model substitute a citation
The brief
Learning objective
Write a fresh-context review prompt that catches real errors (wrong dates, misquotes, misattributed conditions, unverifiable citations) by checking the draft against supplied source text and a concrete checklist, records each finding as an auditable change-log row, lists what was left untouched, and refrains from rewriting or from generic self-doubt prompts that make models flip correct statements.
Scenario
A junior associate has sent a first-draft memo. You are short of time and want to use an AI reviewer before you read it yourself, in a fresh chat with only the lease clauses, the facts and the draft. The 2025-26 research is clear: 'double-check your answer' and 'are you sure?' make models change correct things and miss real errors; what works is checking against external material and changing only what can be demonstrated. The draft cites a case that is not in your materials; the model cannot verify it, and you do not want it swapped for another case name that the model is equally unable to verify.
Your task
Write the review prompt. Supply or point to the lease clauses and facts as the reference, give a checklist of what to test, require findings (not a rewrite) as a change log with one row per finding (draft words | clause words with sub-clause | what is wrong | corrected sentence) and severity, require a separate 'Verified' list of paragraphs left untouched, tell the reviewer to change nothing it cannot demonstrate and to list arguable points separately, and require any authority not in the materials to be marked 'not verifiable from materials' and never replaced by another case. Cover every paragraph.
Materials
What you have on file
DRAFT MEMO (first draft) - extract 1. Under clause 12.1 Brackwater had to serve its break notice by 1 March 2026, nine months before the Break Date. The notice was emailed on 28 May 2026, so it was late in any event. 2. Clause 12.2 makes the break conditional on there being no material breach at the date the notice is served. As the plant was serviced in April 2026, no breach subsisted on 28 May 2026 and the condition is satisfied. 3. The repair covenant (clause 5.2) requires the premises to be kept in 'good repair, fair wear and tear excepted'. A serviceable plant meets this standard. 4. Courts consistently accept email service where the recipient acknowledges receipt (Harlow v Penrose Estates), so the landlord's point on clause 19.1 is weak. LEASE CLAUSES 1.1 'Break Date' means 1 March 2027. 5.2 The Tenant shall keep the Premises, including the Refrigeration Plant, in good and substantial repair and condition. 12.1 The Tenant may terminate on the Break Date by serving not less than nine months' written notice. 12.2 A notice under 12.1 is of no effect unless on the Break Date (a) vacant possession is given, (b) all Rent due is paid, and (c) no material breach of the Tenant's covenants is subsisting. 19.1 Notices shall be in writing and delivered by hand or sent by recorded delivery post to the recipient's registered office. FACTS: notice emailed 28 May 2026; plant serviced April 2026.
Paste these into your prompt where the task calls for it, or refer to them with a placeholder such as [paste lease extract]. When you run a prompt that uses a placeholder, the Lab appends the materials so the model has something to work on. Where the task asks you to paste an edited copy, nothing is appended: what you paste is what runs.
How you will be graded
Rubric (100 points)
The grader scores your prompt, not the output. Length and formatting earn nothing; a short prompt that hits every criterion beats a long one that misses one.
| Criterion | Pts | What good looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Supplies the reference material (lease clauses and facts) in the prompt and instructs the reviewer to check against it only, not against its own recollection | 20 | Lease and facts in labelled containers, draft in another, and a sentence such as 'use only the clauses and facts provided; this is a fresh review'. |
| Gives a concrete checklist of what to test (dates and deadlines, verbatim quotations, conditions attributed to the right time and clause, legal propositions supported or flagged, facts not in the record) | 20 | At least four specific checks phrased as tests, not 'check for accuracy'. |
| Asks for findings only, tells the reviewer to change or challenge nothing it cannot demonstrate from the source, and routes arguable points to a separate list | 15 | 'Report findings; do not rewrite the memo; if a point is arguable rather than wrong, list it under Points to confirm.' |
| Specifies the change-log shape: one row per finding with the draft words quoted, the clause words quoted with sub-clause number, what is wrong in one sentence, a corrected sentence, and a severity label; plus a separate 'Verified' list of paragraphs left untouched | 25 | All five row elements listed and the Verified list requested, so each finding is auditable by the human reviewer in seconds and the untouched text is accounted for. |
| Requires full coverage (every paragraph) and treats citations correctly: any authority not in the materials is marked 'not verifiable from materials' and is never replaced by another case; no 'double-check' / 'are you sure' style prompts | 20 | 'Review every paragraph'; 'if a cited case does not appear in the materials, mark it not verifiable from materials, state the proposition it is cited for, and do not substitute another case'; no generic self-doubt instruction. |
Hints
Stuck? Open one at a time.
Hint 1
Give the reviewer something external to check against (the lease clauses and facts) and say 'use only these, not your recollection'.Hint 2
Ask for a change log, not a rewrite: one row per finding with draft words | clause words (sub-clause) | what is wrong | corrected sentence, plus a 'Verified' list of paragraphs left untouched. 'Change only what you can demonstrate' is the phrase that keeps correct text intact.Hint 3
Do not ask the model to confirm that a case exists; tell it to mark any authority not in the materials 'not verifiable from materials' and not to substitute another case.
Your prompt