I stopped checking my own AI work

⚡ In this issue

5 stories, 30 seconds. Including the Claude watermark people are
cancelling over.

The 6-step loop I run before anything leaves my desk, and a one-page
version to keep.

One update, chosen for how you work. What changed, who doesn't have it
yet, and one thing to try this week.

After you vote: tell me why you chose it.

What does that AI do well enough that you’d keep paying for it?

I’m going to compare your answers with what people across the internet are saying — and publish the results in an upcoming issue.

Every brand that wins online has one thing in common: a content strategy that's built to last, not just a blog that gets updated when someone has time.

HubSpot Academy's free Content Marketing Certification covers the full picture — from crafting a compelling brand story, optimizing for search, creating videos that convert, and measuring performance in a way leadership actually understands.

14 lessons. Practical frameworks trusted by marketers around the world.

Whether you're building your content strategy from scratch or formalizing a structure around existing actions you're taking today — this is the course that makes it click.

Start the course free — and finish with a strategy that scales.

Get Started Free

A number in one of my drafts looked completely normal.

Then someone asked where it came from. I opened the source and searched for it. The number was not there. The AI had made it up.

I used to catch mistakes like this myself. I gave every piece about 2 minutes of my own reading. When I was in a hurry, which is most of the time, I skipped it.

So I gave the checking job to a second AI.

Here's the whole loop. It works on free accounts.

1. Open the link first.

If the answer has a citation, click it. That catches the obvious ones in 10 seconds. A link that goes nowhere is the easiest error you'll ever find.

2. Give the second AI everything, not just the answer.

I paste 3 things. The answer. The prompt I gave the first AI. And the documents the first AI was working from.

This is the part that matters. If you paste only the answer and ask "is this true?", the second AI doesn't know what you asked for. So it agrees with whatever it reads.

3. Tell it what the work has to do.

Who reads this, a client or just me. What format I asked for. Whether a normal person can understand it.

Then I ask it to flag anything it can't support. Flag only. No rewriting.

4. Use a different model family, not just a different chat.

I let Perplexity, Grok, ChatGPT and Claude check each other's work. I even let Claude's Fable check Claude's Opus, because they learned from different data.

2 models trained on the same material will be confident about the same mistakes. Different training is the whole point.

5. Colour what comes back.

Green, yellow, red. Supported, no source, contradicted.

I have ADHD. A wall of text doesn't get read. 3 colours do.

6. Check in the middle, not at the end.

When I write a website, I don't write 6 pages and check them together. I write the homepage. I check it. I give the checked version back to the first AI. Then I write the next page.

By the time I reach the end, there's nothing big left to find.

That's the part that surprised me.

I thought I'd have to read everything myself anyway. But once 2 models trained on different data have both looked at it, I stopped finding things they missed. So I stopped giving it my 2 minutes.

It flags. You decide. That line is not modesty, it's the actual limit.

Both models can be wrong about the same thing, so agreement is not proof. And sometimes it flags a claim that's perfectly fine, and you have to open the source to find that out.

If you send it without reading the flags, you've just added a step and changed nothing.

I put the whole loop on one page. The prompt to paste, the 3 colours, and the 4 lines that stop the second AI from rewriting your work instead of checking it.