Review Checklist: [Deliverable Type]
Overview
Deliverable: [What is being reviewed] Source materials: [List the source documents used] AI tools used: [List any AI tools or workflows used] Risk tier: [Low / Medium / High] Reviewer: [Name] Date: [Date]Source accuracy
- All factual claims are supported by the cited source material
- Numerical data (endpoints, p-values, confidence intervals, sample sizes) are accurately reproduced
- Study design and population descriptions match the source
- Timepoints and study phases are correctly represented
- Statistical significance and clinical significance are correctly distinguished
- Conclusions align with the source’s stated conclusions, not AI interpretation
Completeness
- All relevant efficacy findings are included
- Safety data is present and not minimised or omitted
- Study limitations are preserved
- Relevant qualifiers are retained (subgroup, post-hoc, exploratory, interim)
- Comparator details are accurate and included
Unsourced content
- No claims appear that cannot be traced to the provided source materials
- Background information comes from appropriate, verifiable sources
- No AI-generated content has been left in that was not verified against a source
- Definitions or explanations are accurate and appropriate for the audience
Language and appropriateness
- Language is appropriate for the target audience
- Medical terminology is used correctly and consistently
- No inappropriate certainty (e.g., “proves” instead of “demonstrated”)
- No inappropriate hedging that understates clear findings
- Tone is consistent and professional
Compliance (where applicable)
- Claims are within the approved messaging framework
- References are correctly cited and support the claims made
- No off-label implications or suggestions
- Balance of efficacy and safety information is appropriate
- Fair balance requirements are met (for promotional content)
- Prescribing information requirements are addressed (for promotional content)
Format and structure
- Deliverable meets the specified format requirements
- Headings, structure, and flow are logical
- Length is within the specified range
- All required sections are present
AI-specific checks
- AI-assisted sections have been specifically reviewed for accuracy
- No hallucinated data, references, or citations
- No blended or merged findings from different sources or study arms
- No extrapolated conclusions beyond what the source supports
- AI outputs have been compared against the original source, not just reviewed for readability
Review outcome
- Approved — content meets all requirements
- Approved with minor changes — changes noted and implemented
- Requires revision — significant issues identified, returned for rework
- Rejected — fundamental accuracy or compliance issues
Notes
[Space for reviewer comments, specific issues found, or changes requested]Reviewer signature: _______________ Date: _______________