Ethiopian Civil Society Engagement Program · Phase II
Everything given out on the day, in the order it is used. Readable on a phone, and it works offline once loaded.
One day
This page holds every sheet handed out during the day. Each tab is one session, in the order they happen. If you lost a sheet, or want to use one at work next week, it is here.
Everything in the exercises is invented. No real names, no beneficiaries, no sources, no budgets, no case files. Nothing real goes into any tool at any point.
That is not a formality. It is what makes it safe to be a beginner in a room full of your peers.
| 1 | These tools invent things, and you will not notice unless you check. |
| 2 | You can still get real work out of them — if you brief them properly and trace every claim. |
| 3 | Some things must never go near them. And the reason is not the name — it is the combination. |
| 4 | Somebody has to own this, and it is you. |
| Session | |
|---|---|
| 1 | What this day is, and the one rule |
| 2 | How these tools work, and how they lie |
| 3 | Getting useful work out of it |
| 4 | Writing something real |
| 5 | The practical clinic |
| 6 | What must never go in |
| 7 | Checking what you are sent, and your own rules |
Session 2
Two sheets. Read both, and mark anything in the paragraph the record does not support.
Sheet 1 — the record
Everything here is invented for training. This is the only factual record. Anything that does not appear here has not happened.
Sheet 2 — what the AI wrote from it
An AI tool was given the record on Sheet 1 — and nothing else — and asked to write a short programme update for the KCDF website.
Since its launch in February 2026, the Kora Youth Livelihoods Initiative has become one of the most effective youth employment programmes operating in Kora City. Working across four woredas in partnership with the Nordvik Foundation and the Tesfa Development Fund, KCDF has enrolled 412 young people and confirmed that 94 of the 168 graduates are now earning an independent income — a 56 per cent improvement on their situation before enrolment. Attendance has been strongest where the programme has had a stable base: in Gudeta woreda, repeated relocation of the course site during March drove participation down sharply, a problem KCDF has since addressed. "This programme has changed what young people in Kora believe is possible for them," said Hirut Gemechu, KCDF's youth programme officer. Ato Dawit Lemma, head of the Kora City Job Creation Bureau, described the initiative as a model the Bureau intends to replicate in neighbouring woredas next year.
Session 3
Five moves. Every one earns its place — leave one out and you will see it in what comes back.
1 — Who it should be
A useful angle, not a fake expert. And tell it what it does not know, or it fills the gap from everything it has ever read.
You are helping a programme officer at a small civil society organization. You are not an expert on this. You only know what I give you below.2 — What it needs to know
The minimum. Not everything you have. This is the decision that matters, and it is not about typing — once it is in there, it is gone.
Here are the only facts you may use: …3 — What you want
One thing, one reader, one length. Leave this out and it picks all three for you, and it picks promotional.
Write one paragraph of about 120 words for … The reader is …4 — The rules
What it may not do, and where to put what it does not know.
Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date or outcome that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Plain English, no promotional language.5 — What you will check
The one everybody skips, and the one that does the most work. It makes the thing show its working.
After the text, list every factual claim you have made, and next to each one quote the words from my facts that it came from.Turn your screen to the person next to you and let them read it. They are not scoring it. One question only:
"What is missing that would stop this working?"
Most people type six words and hit enter. This is the habit worth building.
None of this is real. There is no such organization and no such town.
The organization
| Who | Debre Hana Community Health Association, in fictional Debre Hana town. Founded 2019. Nine staff |
|---|---|
| What it does | Maternal health outreach in six kebeles |
| Funded by | The fictional Abay Trust. A three-year grant ending 31 March 2027. It is the only funder |
| Last twelve months | 2,400 women reached. 41 community health volunteers trained |
| Outreach sessions | 78 held, against a target of 90 |
| Volunteer retention | 74% this year. It was 61% the year before |
| The hard part | Two of the six kebeles are more than two hours from the main road in the rainy season |
| Announced 3 Aug 2026 | A new arrangement with the Debre Hana Health Office to share cold-chain storage |
| People | Tsedale Alemu, Executive Director. Yohannes Bekele, programme lead |
| Not published | No evaluation has ever been published. No figures on health outcomes exist |
Rough meeting notes — if you picked notes into actions
"Monday, everyone there. Yohannes says the two far kebeles will be cut off again from June, we should front-load those sessions before the rains — agreed. Still no decision on whether we run a second volunteer intake, depends on the Abay Trust extension. Tsedale to write to the Trust this week. Somebody needs to update the volunteer register before the audit, nobody said who. Fuel costs are up again and we keep not budgeting for it properly. Next meeting the 19th."
A formal passage — if you picked a summary or a translation check
"Implementing partners shall submit a narrative and financial report within thirty (30) days of the end of each reporting period. Where an implementing partner is unable to meet this deadline, it must notify the Trust in writing before the deadline falls, stating the reason and proposing a revised date. The Trust may, at its discretion, grant an extension of up to fifteen (15) days. Failure to report without prior notification may result in the suspension of subsequent disbursements."
Deliberately full of musts, mays and conditions. That is where summaries and translations break.
Session 4
| A | A concept-note section — problem statement and objectives, 250 words, for the funder below |
| B | A public statement — 180–220 words, marking the first cohort finishing |
| C | A story pitch — 150 words to the editor, plus how you would stand it up |
What KCDF has published
Published on the KCDF website, 12 August 2026. All of this is public.
KCDF launched the Kora Youth Livelihoods Initiative on 3 February 2026 with a two-year grant from the Nordvik Foundation.
The programme runs in four woredas of Kora City — Lensa, Bulcha, Anfaro and Gudeta.
412 young people aged 18–29 enrolled in the first intake.
Participants take a twelve-week skills course. Those who complete it and submit a business plan receive a start-up grant of 15,000 birr.
By 4 August 2026, 168 participants had completed the course and received a start-up grant.
The Kora City Job Creation Bureau provides the training venue in Lensa woreda at no cost.
Hirut Gemechu, KCDF youth programme officer: "The twelve weeks are the easy part. What we do not yet have is a way to keep supporting people once the grant is spent."
KCDF has not published an evaluation of this programme. No income, employment or outcome figures have been published.
For A and B — the funder
| Closes | 30 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Grant range | USD 40,000 – 90,000 over 18 months |
| Stage | Concept note. No annexes, no budget, no logframe |
| Required section | Problem statement and objectives, 250 words maximum |
Priority. Programmes that already have a delivery track record and can show a credible plan for supporting participants after the initial grant is disbursed.
Scoring. Problem definition 30% · Objectives and measurability 30% · Track record 20% · Sustainability 20%.
For C — the newsroom
The press release, 12 August 2026 — everything above, plus one line: "KCDF is seeking funding to extend the Initiative into a second phase."
The commissioning note, from the editor:
"We have covered youth unemployment twice already this year. If we run this at all, it needs an angle we can stand up. Pitch me something by Thursday — 150 words, and tell me how you would verify it before I put a reporter on it."
The newsroom has not seen KCDF's internal review. It has no income data and no attendance figures. Write the pitch from that position, because that is the position you would really be in.
| 1 | Can you point at where every number came from? Same figure, same units, same period |
| 2 | Has any word been upgraded? Reported becoming confirmed. Some becoming most. This is the one everybody misses |
| 3 | Has anything appeared that was not in the source? A partner, a quotation, an official, a comparison |
| 4 | Is anything in here true but unpublished? Knowing something is not the same as being allowed to publish it |
| 5 | Whose name goes on it? A person, not a job title |
Session 5 · four rounds
Read the summary first, then the policy. Mark anything the summary changed.
The summary an AI produced
"KCDF staff may use any digital tool to prepare communications as long as a director approves the final version. Personal information should generally be minimized. Translations can be published after automated grammar checking. If an error occurs, staff should quietly update the website."
The policy it was summarising
1. Urgent allegations may be published only after a designated reviewer confirms the source record and separates verified fact, allegation, and unknown information.
2. Public communications must use the minimum personal information necessary. Consent to publish one fact does not imply consent to publish other personal details.
3. Drafts may be assisted by approved digital tools only after data classification. Red information must not enter a public AI tool. Amber information requires approval and documented minimization.
4. Translations must be reviewed by a fluent human against the source for meaning, omissions, names, terminology, tone and potential harm. Machine translation is never the final approval step.
5. Quotations, legal references, statistics, dates and institutional titles must be checked against the authoritative source. If a source cannot be confirmed, the claim must be removed or clearly qualified.
6. The Communications Director approves routine statements. The Executive Director approves high-risk allegations, statements naming a person or institution, and corrections involving potential harm.
7. If an error is published, KCDF records the incident, corrects the public version promptly, informs affected people where appropriate, and reviews the workflow that allowed it.
Participants reached, by training site
| Training site | Planned | Reached | % of plan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lensa | 120 | 114 | 95% |
| Bulcha | 110 | 99 | 90% |
| Anfaro | 95 | 87 | 92% |
| Gudeta — site 1 | 60 | 31 | 52% |
| Gudeta — site 2 | 45 | 23 | 51% |
| Mobile outreach | 70 | 58 | 74% |
| TOTAL | 500 | 412 | 82% |
The caption an AI wrote for it
"Mobile outreach reached only 74% of its target, the weakest performance of any delivery site and a marked decline on the previous quarter. Overall the programme reached 76% of planned participants across all sites — a strong result given the operating environment."
Translate these two into your own language. Someone will read the result back in English.
"Hirut Gemechu, KCDF youth programme officer, said: 'The twelve weeks are the easy part. What we do not yet have is a way to keep supporting people once the grant is spent.'"
"By 4 August 2026, 168 of the 412 participants had completed the twelve-week course and received a start-up grant of 15,000 birr."
Turn these notes into decisions and actions
"Programme team, Tuesday. Talked about the second intake — Almaz thinks we should start in Bulcha and Anfaro first because the sites are settled, everyone agreed. Still no decision on Gudeta, need to see if the new venue holds. Finance said the grant transfers are slow, Kebede to chase the bank this week. Someone should draft the intake criteria before the board meets — nobody said who. Hirut raised that we still have no follow-up after the start-up grant and we keep not dealing with it. Next meeting the 14th."
These are the answers. If you have not done the rounds yet, do them first — the whole point is finding the mistakes yourself.
Session 6
Red — never in a public tool
Names of people you protect · beneficiary and participant lists · unpublished sources · off-record recordings · case files and testimony · staff records · monitoring data with names in it · budgets under negotiation · passwords · anyone's location or movements · health information
Amber — only with a named person's yes
Internal drafts · unpublished plans · embargoed material · anything high-impact going out publicly · partner information · any tool you have not used before. Cut it down to the minimum, and write down who approved it.
Green — go ahead, then check
Anything already published · public documents and laws · invented examples · your own drafting with no one else in it · formatting and slides. Green is about what goes in. You still check what comes out.
A record your organization holds
If you work for a civil society organization — this is a participant intake record. If you work in a newsroom — this is a source contact sheet. The record is the same either way.
| Full name | (withheld in this training version) |
|---|---|
| Phone | +251-9XX-XXX-417 |
| Where she lives | House 18, Block C, Lensa Kebele, Kora City |
| Work | The only night pharmacist at the small clinic beside the Kora bus depot |
| What she described | Uniformed personnel entered a neighbouring office at 22:17 on 9 July 2026 and took two people away |
| Health | Panic attacks since; currently receiving counselling |
| Family | Her brother works in the city command's procurement unit |
| The recording | The audio file name contains her phone number and the date |
| What she agreed to | Confidential internal analysis only. She did not agree to publication, and did not agree to it being put into any AI tool |
| What the colleague wants | A public-facing summary, written using a free chatbot, today |
Do not open this until you have decided. The whole exercise turns on making the decision first.
"A woman who is the only night pharmacist at the clinic beside the Kora bus depot witnessed uniformed personnel remove two people at exactly 22:17 on 9 July. Her brother works in city-command procurement. She has been having panic attacks since."
Who is this?
| Removing a name does not anonymize anything | Occupation plus place plus time is a name. The combination identifies, not the label |
|---|---|
| Consent is not general | Someone agreeing to talk to you has not agreed to be summarised, or processed by a company they have never heard of |
| Deleting the chat does not un-send it | It was transmitted and processed. Deleting reduces risk. It does not undo |
| A privacy setting does not give you permission | Turning off training data does not make consent exist |
| Stop | Send nothing else. Do not try to fix it inside the same tool |
|---|---|
| Contain | Close shared links, revoke access, delete the conversation, check the retention setting |
| Tell someone | The named person in your organization. Today, not next week |
| Write down what changed | Not who to blame. What you will do differently |
Session 7
A video is going around
At 08:20 this morning a social-media account posted a 14-second video which appears to show the director of a local organization accepting cash from a government official. It is spreading among local accounts. Your organization has to decide what to do, and the phone is already ringing.
What you have — and this is all of it
| 1 | The account. Created two days ago. No biography. Eleven posts. The profile picture also appears on several unrelated accounts. |
| 2 | The video. 14 seconds, heavily compressed. The face is visible for about four seconds. The audio says "this is our agreement." Lip movement is partly obscured. No file information came with the repost. |
| 3 | The room. A conference venue used by many organizations. A sign behind the speakers is partly visible: "…Rights Forum 2025." |
| 4 | Your own records. The director did attend a public forum at that venue in November 2025, and was filmed at an award ceremony there. Staff do not recognise the words in the clip. |
| 5 | Other accounts. Two other accounts have reposted the same clip. Both trace back to the original account. No independent copy, no longer version. |
| 6 | A detection tool. An online AI detector returns "82% likely manipulated." No method, no error rate, no explanation. |
| 7 | Context. The director has received threats in recent months. Sharing the clip further — even to deny it — puts it in front of people who have not seen it. |
One page, filled in on the day, for your own organization. Real names, not job titles — if you write a job title, what you have written is that nobody is answerable.
| 1 | Who keeps these rules and answers questions about them |
| 2 | Who says yes to the amber cases |
| 3 | Two things anyone may do without asking |
| 4 | Two things that need a yes |
| 5 | Two things nobody may do |
| 6 | Our one-sentence rule about what never goes in |
| 7 | Who to tell when something goes wrong, and how fast |
| 8 | Tools we have agreed to use |
| 9 | When we will look at this page again |
| 10 | If you publish or broadcast: when we tell our audience AI helped |
Sixteen prompts, ready to copy
One for each of the jobs this room actually does. Tap a prompt to open it, replace anything in [square brackets], and paste it in.
These prompts are safe. What you paste into them may not be. Every one has a bracket where your facts go. Before you fill it in, check it against the red, amber and green card — if it is a list of people, an unpublished source, a case file, staff records, a budget under negotiation or anyone's location, no prompt can fix that.
When: You have an approved project brief and a call for proposals, and you need the first section.
You are helping a programme officer at a small civil society organization draft a section of a concept note for a funder. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here are the only facts you may use: [paste your published project brief] And here is what the funder has asked for: [paste the relevant part of the call — word limit, what the section must cover, how it is scored] Write the problem statement and objectives section, no longer than the word limit in the call. The reader is an assessor who has never visited and will read forty of these. Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date, place, outcome or comparison that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Write objectives that can be measured — if a fact needed to make an objective measurable is not in what I gave you, say so rather than inventing a target. Plain English. No promotional language. After the text, list every factual claim you have made, and next to each one quote the words from my facts that it came from.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot tell you whether your project is a good fit for this funder. It has not read their other grants.
When: The numbers are done and you need the words around them.
You are helping a programme officer write the narrative section of a report to a funder. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here are the only facts you may use: [paste your agreed figures for the period, and any activities you can evidence] The reporting period is: [dates] Write the narrative section, [N] words, for a funder who has not visited. Cover what was done, what changed, and what did not go to plan. Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date, place, outcome or comparison that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Do not describe an outcome unless I have given you evidence of it — activities and outcomes are different things. Where something went wrong, say so plainly. Plain English. No promotional language. After the text, list every factual claim you have made, and next to each one quote the words from my facts that it came from.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot decide what is material enough to report. That is a judgement about your relationship with the funder.
When: You need a page that lets a board decide something without reading forty.
You are helping an executive director prepare a short written brief for a board of trustees. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here are the only facts you may use: [paste the source material — a report, a proposal, a set of options] The decision the board has to make is: [state it in one sentence] Write a brief of no more than one page, structured as: the decision · what you need to know · the options · what I recommend and why · what happens if we do nothing. The readers are trustees who are not close to the detail. Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date, place, outcome or comparison that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Keep the recommendation separate from the facts, and label it as a recommendation. Where there is genuine uncertainty, say so rather than smoothing it. Plain English. After the text, list every factual claim you have made, and next to each one quote the words from my facts that it came from.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It does not know your board. Tone and what can go unsaid are yours.
When: You have rough notes and nobody will read them again unless you turn them into something.
You are helping turn rough meeting notes into a clear list of actions. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here are my notes from the meeting: [paste your notes] The people in the meeting were: [first names or roles only] Produce two things. First, a list of decisions that were made. Second, a table of actions with three columns: what, who, and by when. Use only what is in my notes. **If an action has no owner or no date in the notes, still list it, and write UNASSIGNED or NO DATE** — do not guess who or when. If something reads like a discussion rather than a decision, leave it out of the decisions list. Do not invent an action that was not discussed. At the end, list anything in my notes you were not sure how to classify.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot tell what was agreed and what was merely said warmly. Check anything that felt ambiguous in the room.
When: Something has been published or agreed, and you need to say it publicly.
You are helping a civil society organization draft a short public statement. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here are the only facts you may use, and all of them are already public: [paste the approved announcement, press release or published decision] Write a public statement of [N] words for a general audience, including the media. It should be accurate enough that a journalist quoting it in full could not make us look dishonest. Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date, place, outcome or comparison that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Do not name any person, partner or government body that is not named in my facts, and do not describe any relationship that is not described there. No quotations unless I have supplied the exact words and who said them. Plain English. No promotional language. After the text, list every factual claim you have made, and next to each one quote the words from my facts that it came from.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot judge what is safe to say publicly in your context. That is yours, and it is not a language problem.
When: The document is out and you need three or four posts from it.
You are helping draft short social media posts for a civil society organization. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the published document. Everything in it is already public: [paste the published text] Write four different posts, each under [N] characters, each drawing on a different part of the document. One should be plain and factual, one should quote the document directly, one should ask the reader a question, and one should point to where the full document can be read. Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date, place, outcome or comparison that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Every claim in every post must be traceable to the document. Do not add hashtags, statistics or calls to action that are not supported by it. Do not use urgency language that the document does not support. After the posts, for each one quote the sentence from the document it came from.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It does not know what your audience reacts to, and it does not know what is sensitive to post this week.
When: You know what you need to say and you are struggling with how to say it.
You are helping draft a professional email. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the situation, and these are the only facts you may use: [paste or write out what has happened, using no real names — write "the funder", "our partner", "the programme"] What I need from them is: [state it] Write an email of no more than [N] words. It should state the situation, say what I am asking for, and propose a next step with a date. Use only the facts I have given. Do not apologise more than once. Do not add commitments, deadlines or offers I have not made. Do not soften the ask to the point where it is unclear what I want. Plain professional English. At the end, state in one line what you understood me to be asking for. If that does not match what I meant, my facts were unclear.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It does not know the history between you. Warmth, and what is better left unsaid, are yours.
When: A proclamation, policy or report is long and public, and your colleagues will not read it.
You are helping summarise a long public document for colleagues who have not read it. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the document. It is public: [paste the document, or the section you need] Write a summary of no more than [N] words for a colleague who needs to know what this means for our work. Then, separately, list anything in the document that creates an obligation for an organization like ours. Use only the document. **Keep the strength of the original wording** — if the document says "must", do not write "should"; if it says "may", do not write "will". Where the document says something is required only in certain circumstances, keep the circumstances. Do not resolve ambiguity in the document; point it out. At the end, list any place where you were unsure whether something was required, recommended or merely permitted.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It is not legal advice, and a summary is not a reading. For anything consequential, someone opens the original.
When: You have a contract, a donor agreement or a proclamation, and half the terms are guesses.
You are helping someone read a document written in formal or legal language. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the document, or the part I need to understand: [paste it] My organization does this: [one line] List every term, phrase or clause in this document that someone outside the profession would not be sure about. For each one, give the plain meaning **as this document uses it**, and one line on why it matters to us. Use only the document. **If this document defines a term differently from how it is normally used, go with the document** and say that is what you have done. If a term is genuinely ambiguous here, say so rather than choosing a meaning. Do not give legal advice and do not tell me what to do. At the end, list any term you were not confident about, and any place where the document appears to contradict itself.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot tell you whether the terms are reasonable, or whether you should sign.
When: A proclamation, directive or regulation has come out and your team needs to know what it means for them.
You are helping summarise a new law or directive for colleagues who will not read the original. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the text. It is public: [paste it] Our organization: [one line on what you do and where] Write two things. First, a plain summary of no more than [N] words. Second, a list of everything in it that creates an obligation for an organization like ours — what we must do, by when, and what happens if we do not. **Keep the strength of the original wording.** A *must* stays a must; a *may* stays a may. Keep every deadline, and keep every exception — *"must, unless"* is not *"must"*. Do not tell me what is likely to be enforced in practice, or what other organizations usually do; you have no way of knowing. If the text is unclear about whether something applies to an organization like ours, say so rather than deciding. At the end, list anything where you were unsure whether an obligation applies to us, and quote the wording that made it unclear.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It does not know how this is enforced where you are, and it is not legal advice.
When: A contract has been renewed, a policy redrafted, or a draft has come back from someone else.
You are helping compare two versions of the same document. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the earlier version: [paste it] Here is the newer version: [paste it] List every difference that changes meaning, grouped as: something added · something removed · an obligation made stronger or weaker · a number, date or name changed · wording changed but meaning the same. Quote both versions for every difference you report. Ignore formatting and pure style changes unless they change meaning. Do not tell me which version is better. **If a whole clause is missing from the newer version, put it at the very top of your answer** — removals are far easier to miss than additions. At the end, say how confident you are that you found everything, and which parts were hardest to line up.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot tell you why something changed, or whether the change was deliberate.
When: A contract, an MoU or a set of minutes has come back, and you need to know whether it says what you agreed.
You are helping check whether a document reflects what was agreed in a meeting. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is what I recorded as agreed — **use roles, not names**: [paste your notes] Here is the document that came back: [paste it] Produce three lists. One: things in the document that match what I recorded. Two: things in the document that were not in what I recorded. Three: things I recorded that are not in the document. Use only the two texts. **Do not assume something was agreed because it sounds reasonable.** Where the document says something similar but not the same, put it in list two and quote both versions. Do not soften a mismatch to make it sound smaller than it is. At the end, say which of the three lists you are least confident about, and why.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It does not know what was actually said in the room. It only knows what you wrote down.
When: You have a translation and you need to know where to look before it goes out.
You are helping check a translation against its source. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the original: [paste the source text] Here is the translation: [paste the translation] Compare them and produce a list of differences worth a human looking at. Group them under: meaning changed · something added · something dropped · a name, number, date or title that differs · a word that is stronger or weaker than the original. Do not rewrite the translation. Only report differences, and quote both versions for each one. Do not comment on style unless the style changes the meaning. **If you are not confident about the target language, say so at the top rather than guessing.** At the end, state how confident you are in this comparison and why.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It is often weak in Ethiopian languages and it will not reliably tell you so. Treat a clean result with suspicion, not relief.
When: You have the content agreed and you need it laid out.
You are helping turn an approved piece of writing into an outline for a short presentation. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is the approved text. Nothing may be added to it: [paste the approved summary] I have [N] minutes and the audience is: [who] Produce a slide outline. For each slide give a heading of no more than eight words, at most three bullets, and one line of what I should say that is not on the slide. Use only the facts above. Do not add any number, name, date, place, outcome or comparison that is not in them. If something important is missing, do not fill it in — put a line at the end starting MISSING: and say what you would need. Do not add examples, statistics or transitions that are not in my text. If a slide would be thin, leave it thin rather than filling it. Suggest where a slide should be cut if there are too many for the time. At the end, say which slides you had least material for.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. This is one of the things it is genuinely good at. Use it here early, and free your attention for the things it is bad at.
When: You are preparing to talk to someone and you want to think before you are in the room.
You are helping prepare questions for an interview. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is what I already know, from published sources only: [paste what is public] I am speaking to: [a role, not a name] What I am trying to find out is: [state it] Suggest [N] questions, ordered so the conversation can build. Mark which ones are open and which are checking a specific fact. Then separately list what I would still not know even if all of them were answered. Do not write leading questions. Do not assume anything that is not in what I gave you. Do not suggest a question that puts the person at risk to answer, and say so if you think one might. At the end, list any assumption you made about the situation that I did not tell you.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot judge risk in your context. Whether a question is safe to ask is your call, not its.
When: You have something and you need to say what it is and what it would take.
You are helping a reporter write a short pitch to an editor. You are not an expert on this organization or this work. You only know what I give you below. Here is what I actually have, and all of it is published or on the record: [paste it] Here is what I suspect but cannot yet show: [write it out separately] Write two things. First, a pitch of no more than 150 words that states what I could report today. Second, a verification plan: what would need to be established, in what order, who I would approach first, and what I would do if the first step failed. **Keep what I have and what I suspect completely separate.** The pitch may only contain what I can already show. Do not present a suspicion as a finding. Do not suggest naming anyone who has not been approached. If the story does not stand up on what I have, say so. At the end, state plainly whether what I have is enough to report anything today.Check this in what comes back
What it will not do. It cannot assess legal risk, source safety, or whether your editor will run it.