Synthetic sample deliverables

What a useful human AI QA report looks like.

One short example per review type, showing the evidence, issue labels, corrections, and uncertainty notes a reviewer returns. The samples are synthetic and exist to set scope and quality expectations before you send a request.

Request managed QA pilotCreate a buyer brief
Samples
Seven, one per fixed service
Format
Report excerpt in plain text
Status
Synthetic, not client work

Important: these are synthetic examples for scoping and quality standards. GoHireHumans human QA can reduce mistakes and create review records, but it does not replace professional legal, medical, financial, or compliance advice.

Sample deliverables by service

Each excerpt shows the shape of the report, not a real client review.

AI blog post fact-check sample

Deliverable format: Claim list, label, source note, suggested correction, and risk score.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: Revise before publishing
Risk: Medium
Claims checked: 12
Verified: 7
Questionable: 3
Incorrect: 2
Evidence note: Statistic in paragraph 4 is outdated; current source says 41%, not 57%.
Suggested correction: Replace the unsupported market-size sentence with a sourced, dated claim.
Reviewer confidence: Medium. Sources on this topic change quickly.

AI citation and source verification sample

Deliverable format: Source existence, support level, broken links, and replacement source ideas.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: Fix citations before using
Links checked: 9
Broken links: 1
Source supports claim: 5/9
Weak or mismatched support: 3/9
Issue example: Link 6 discusses onboarding cost, not retention improvement.
Suggested action: Replace Link 6 or soften the retention claim.
Reviewer confidence: High for link checks; Medium for domain interpretation.

AI support reply QA sample

Deliverable format: Accuracy, policy fit, tone, escalation flag, and corrected response.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: Revise before sending
Risk: Medium
Issue 1: Refund promise exceeds policy.
Evidence: Policy says refunds require supervisor approval after 30 days.
Suggested wording: “I can escalate this for review and follow up with available options.”
Tone: Empathetic, but needs a clearer next step.
Escalate: Yes. Billing or refund decision.

RAG answer groundedness sample

Deliverable format: Answer-to-source comparison, groundedness label, missing context, and refusal flag.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: High risk
Grounded claims: 4/7
Unsupported answer: cites Source B for a claim not present in retrieved docs.
Broken or weak citations: 2
Missing context: Source A includes an exception the answer omits.
Should have refused: No, but the answer should include a caveat.
Correction: Cite Source A paragraph 3 only for the supported portion.
Reviewer confidence: Medium. The retrieved source set may be incomplete.

AI-built website QA sample

Deliverable format: Device notes, broken links, confusing copy, trust gaps, and conversion fixes.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: Fix before launch campaign
Devices checked: phone-width mobile and desktop Chrome
Critical issue: Mobile hero CTA wraps below the first screen.
Broken links: Pricing footer link returns 404.
Trust gap: No clear statement of what happens after submitting interest.
Suggested fix: Move the primary CTA above the fold and add a “no payment collected” note.
Reviewer confidence: High for observed UI issues.

AI-agent work audit sample

Deliverable format: Output review, provided-context check, action approval notes, and handoff risks.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: Human approval needed
Final output quality: Good summary, weak source traceability
Tool/context notes: Agent used the right CRM record but did not confirm stale contact status.
Action risk: Do not send automatically; relationship-sensitive account.
Approval checklist: Confirm recipient, update source date, add softer intro.
Reviewer confidence: Medium. Tool logs were partial.

AI product content QA sample

Deliverable format: Claim review, missing product facts, grammar and tone notes, and improved copy.

Sample report excerpt

Recommendation: Revise before publishing
Risk: Medium
Issue 1: “Best in class” claim is unsupported.
Issue 2: Battery-life number needs a source or removal.
Missing info: Warranty length, compatibility, return window.
Suggested correction: Replace the absolute claim with a sourced spec or softer language.
Publish status: OK after claims are sourced or softened.

Minimum quality bar

Every report, whatever the service, should contain these five parts.

  • A pass, revise, or high-risk recommendation
  • Issue severity and location
  • Evidence: links, screenshots, policy references, or source notes
  • Suggested correction where useful
  • Confidence and uncertainty notes

How to use these examples

Pick the closest service, paste the AI output and source material into a buyer brief, then use the managed pilot page for manual scoping. No checkout or job is created automatically from this page.

Related pages

Neighbouring pages in the AI QA cluster, each with a different scope.

Service menu and suggested budgetsAll review types with suggested budgets.AI QA report templateThe five sections every report should contain.Scope and trust policyWhat a human review does and does not promise.

Want a report like this for your own AI output?

Email the output and its sources. An operator scopes the review and you approve the quote before anyone starts.

Request managed QA pilotChoose a fixed service