Editorial policy
WorkWithAI.expert publishes practical guidance about using AI in real work — with verification routines, clear limits, and human accountability. This page explains exactly how we write, check, and update content.
What we publish
We focus on workable systems, not tool lists: documents, meetings, planning, decisions, research, learning workflows, and everyday systems. The goal is not to “use more AI”, but to get better outcomes with less noise.
Scope
- Workflows that hold up under real constraints
- Verification and error-containment routines
- Boundaries for high-stakes contexts
- Privacy-first habits and practical checklists
What we avoid
- Hype-driven claims and “magic prompts”
- Unverifiable benchmarks without context
- Advice that encourages blind automation
- Overconfident medical/legal/financial decisioning
Our quality standards
Every article is written with the assumption that AI can be wrong. Content is designed so a reader can verify, reproduce, and adapt the guidance.
Clarity over cleverness
We prefer stable mental models, plain language, and repeatable routines.
Verification is built-in
Where errors matter, we include checks: assumptions, failure modes, and “how to confirm”.
Human accountability
AI can assist, but responsibility stays with the human. We never frame AI as a decision-maker.
Realistic constraints
We optimize for real teams: limited time, messy inputs, and imperfect context.
Sources & citations
We cite sources when readers benefit from checking primary material (official docs, standards, research). For practical workflow advice, we prioritize reproducibility: examples, checklists, and decision rules.
Rule of thumb
If a claim could change your decisions, it should be testable or sourceable. If it’s a workflow suggestion, it should be repeatable.
AI usage policy
We may use AI for drafting, outlining, rewriting, or generating examples. We do not outsource responsibility: final content is curated and edited by humans.
Allowed uses
- Drafting sections and structure suggestions
- Summarizing long notes and outlining
- Generating variations of examples/checklists
- Language polish and readability
Not allowed
- “Decide for you” in high-stakes contexts
- Fabricating sources or quotes
- Presenting uncertain info as fact
- Publishing without human review
Updates & corrections
Articles are maintained. We update when tools change, guidance becomes clearer, or readers report issues. Major changes are reflected in the “Updated” date on the article.
Frequently asked questions
Is your content written by AI?
AI may assist with drafting or rewriting, but editorial responsibility is human. We design workflows and verification steps so readers can validate results.
How do you prevent hallucinations from becoming “facts”?
We emphasize verification routines (sources, cross-checks, assumption logs) and avoid presenting uncertain outputs as authoritative.
Do you give legal / medical / financial advice?
No. We publish workflow guidance and risk boundaries. In high-stakes areas we focus on safe decision framing and “how to verify”, not final decisions.
Why should I trust this site?
Trust should be earned through transparency. This page explains our standards, update process, and how we design content to be testable and verifiable in real work.
Start with topics
Browse guides by goal and workflow. Calm, structured, and verification-first.
Explore Topics →About the editor
Learn what the site is building and why the focus is on real workflows, not tool obsession.
Read About →