A project manager inherits an email thread, a selection sheet, and meeting notes. Each mentions the same kitchen island, but they describe different arrangements. Before the manager can tell the team what to build, someone has to establish how the decision changed.

Datum recommends testing AI on that reconstruction. Ask for a dated sequence of source-backed statements about one decision, with proposals, approvals, and unresolved conflicts kept distinct. The deliverable is a reviewable history that helps a person confirm the current instruction.

Begin with a question narrow enough to answer

Choose a specific question, such as: Which record establishes the currently approved island layout? Gather the relevant correspondence, drawings, selection records, and approval entries. Keep the original files available, including dates, authors, and any attachments referenced in the messages.

Record what the packet contains and the date through which it is complete. If a message refers to a phone call or attachment you do not have, list that missing evidence. A timeline built from part of a conversation should say where its coverage ends.

Use a company-approved environment for project information and include only records needed for this question. Keep separate projects separate, even when their clients chose similar products or layouts.

Use citations to make the history checkable

Anthropic’s current Citations documentation describes responses that point to passages in supplied documents. PDF citations identify page ranges; plain-text citations identify character ranges. The documentation also states that image citations are not supported. A cited sentence can help a reviewer locate evidence, but it does not establish whether the speaker had authority to approve a change.

For this task, Datum recommends keeping the original wording beside the assistant’s interpretation. If a source says a choice is conditional on another decision, preserve that condition. Ask the assistant to mark an unclear status as unresolved rather than turning conversational language into an approval.

Give each event its own row

  • Decision: the specific location, item, or arrangement discussed, using the project’s own names.
  • Timing: when the message or record was created, plus the date of the event it describes if different. Leave unknown dates unknown.
  • Evidence: the exact source passage and a link or location the reviewer can open.
  • Recorded action: proposed, questioned, approved, withdrawn, or another status supported by the wording. Treat the AI’s classification as unverified.
  • Relationship: which earlier statement this event appears to confirm or replace, and what evidence supports that connection.
  • Reviewer disposition: confirmed interpretation, corrected interpretation, or unresolved with a named person to ask.

Retain conflicting rows. A later email may repeat an older idea without replacing an approved drawing. Likewise, a meeting note written after an approval may describe a discussion that happened before it. Sorting by file date alone can give the wrong sequence.

Check what actually changed

Consider a hypothetical island decision. A client first asks whether seating can move to the end. A designer replies that the option needs a revised layout. Later, an approval record names a drawing revision, while a meeting note still mentions the original request.

The assistant should preserve each event and point to its evidence. The reviewer then opens the named drawing to check what was approved. If that drawing is missing, the timeline cannot establish the final arrangement. If the drawing is present but its relevant detail is unreadable, that remains an unresolved check too.

After review, record the current instruction, its supporting approval, and any conditions still open. Keep this conclusion separate from the historical rows. Update the project’s existing decision record through the normal approval process so the team has a clear place to find the answer. A draft AI timeline should not become a competing instruction sheet.

Try a decision your team has already resolved

Use a completed decision with a history that someone on the team can verify. Give the assistant the underlying records without the reviewer’s final reconstruction. Compare the output with that reconstruction and return to the originals when they disagree.

Check for omitted reversals, duplicated events from quoted email chains, misplaced dates, and suggestions mislabeled as approvals. Include a missing attachment in the trial to see whether the assistant exposes the gap. Record the time needed to correct the timeline and confirm the final instruction.

Bring a redacted decision thread and the record your team uses for approvals to a conversation with Adam. Datum’s Training work helps your staff build and run tools around a defined task, including the review needed before an AI draft enters project records.

Sources Read

  • CitationsAnthropic · current documentation; accessed September 28, 2026

Next step, if this note maps to a problem on your desk: book a conversation with Adam. Thirty minutes, weekday evenings, Eastern time.

Related Field Notes