This engagement introduces AI-assisted drafting into your communications or marketing workflow — with defined review stages at each step, clear rules about where it is not used, and a style reference built from your own existing material.
← Back to Marsh Crest FieldAfter six weeks, your communications team has an assisted drafting setup built from your own style guide, integrated with your approval workflow, and accompanied by a category list of content that should not use assisted drafting at all.
The first month of operation includes quality sampling — we review output against your style reference to check that the drafts are consistent with how your organisation communicates before the engagement closes.
Encoded style reference
Built from your existing published material — not a generic house style template. The drafting system works from how you actually write.
Category list for human authorship
A written list of content types where assisted drafting is not appropriate — crisis communications, regulatory submissions, certain executive statements.
Quality sampling across the first month
Drafted content is reviewed against the style reference during the first month of operation. Findings are shared before the engagement closes.
Many communications and marketing teams are somewhere in the middle with AI drafting tools. Individual staff members may already be using them informally, in ways that are not consistent, not reviewed, and not aligned with the organisation's style or governance expectations.
The problem is rarely whether to use assisted drafting — it is how to use it in a way that is controlled, consistent, and clearly bounded. Without a structured approach, the risks are inconsistent voice across published material, assisted drafts going out in content categories where they should not, and no clear process for reviewers to know what they are looking at.
There is also the question of what happens in the first few weeks. Assisted drafts that have not been calibrated to your style need heavier editing than drafts that reflect how you actually write — which can make the technology feel like more work rather than less.
The solution is not a policy document; it is a working setup that reviewers understand and that produces drafts close enough to your voice to be genuinely useful from the beginning.
The setup is built from your existing material, not from generic content conventions. And it sits inside your approval process — not around it.
The content types you produce, how drafts are initiated, who reviews them, and what approval stages exist before publication. We map this before building anything.
The drafting setup is built from your published material and integrated into your workflow. Reviewers see drafts, not published copy — the approval step remains unchanged.
Reviewers are trained on what to look for in assisted drafts. A written category list defines content that bypasses the drafting setup entirely and goes directly to human authorship.
Knowing where assisted drafting should not be used is not a minor detail. Crisis responses, regulatory submissions, public statements on sensitive matters, and certain executive communications require human authorship — and the boundary between those and routine content production needs to be written down explicitly.
We draft that list in week two, working with your team to identify the content categories that matter for your organisation. It is part of the handover documentation.
The setup runs in phases. The quality sampling period runs alongside the live workflow, so the engagement does not close until there is evidence that the output is consistent with your style.
We map your current content approval process and collect existing published material to use as the basis for style encoding. This includes website copy, newsletters, internal communications, and any other content that represents how you write at your best. No changes are made to the workflow at this stage.
The style reference is built from the collected material. In parallel, we work with your team to define the category list — which types of content should not use assisted drafting at all, and why. Both documents are shared for review before the technical build begins.
The drafting setup is connected to your existing workflow — the point at which drafts are initiated, and the review stage at which they are checked and edited. Reviewers are trained on what to look for: consistency with the style reference, scope boundaries, and how to mark drafts that need significant rework.
The workflow goes live. We sample a selection of drafted content across the first month of operation — checking against the style reference and noting where output is consistent or where further calibration is needed. Findings are shared in the final handover.
The engagement cost does not vary with the volume of content your team produces, the number of reviewers trained, or how many revision rounds the style encoding takes to get right.
The quality sampling period is included in the six weeks — this is not an optional add-on. We consider an engagement complete only when there is evidence the output reflects your voice.
¥30,000 JPY
Six-week fixed engagement
Workflow mapping before any technical work begins
Style reference encoded from your own published material
Written category list of content requiring human authorship
Integration into your existing approval routine
Reviewer training — what to look for, how to mark drafts that need rework
Quality sampling across the first month of live operation, with findings
All documents — style reference, category list, sampling report — retained by you
The style reference is derived from content you have already produced and approved — the tone, vocabulary patterns, sentence structure, and formality level that characterise your communications. Generic content conventions are not used as the starting point.
During the first month of live use, a selection of drafted content is reviewed against the style reference. We are looking for consistency — whether the drafts actually reflect how you write — and flag where there are significant deviations.
The list of content types requiring human authorship is built into the workflow, not kept as a separate reference document. Reviewers are trained to apply it, and the sampling period checks whether it is being followed.
What to expect in the first month
Reviewers typically find that assisted drafts reduce the time spent on initial structuring and help with content types that follow a consistent pattern — standard announcements, product updates, regular newsletters. Drafts for content with a strong personal or editorial voice may still require significant rework, and the category list should reflect this. The sampling report at the end of the engagement documents which content types the setup handles well and which are better written without it.
The style encoding is built from your material. If the quality sampling shows that output is not consistent with your standard, we adjust the configuration before the engagement closes.
The category list is documented, not assumed. Staff and reviewers have a written reference for where assisted drafting is appropriate and where it is not — and that document belongs to you.
If you are not certain whether your content workflow suits this engagement — the volume, the content types, the existing approval structure — write to us. We will talk through it without any pressure to proceed.
Tell us about your current content process
A brief description of what you produce — the content types, who writes and who reviews, and what the current volume looks like. You do not need to have decided anything about AI drafting before you get in touch.
We respond within two working days
We read each message carefully. The response will either be specific questions or a suggested next step based on what you have described.
Scope agreed in writing before week one begins
The content types in scope, the existing material to be used for style encoding, the reviewers to be trained, and the start date are confirmed before any work begins.
Six weeks later: a working setup with quality evidence
The workflow is live, reviewers are trained, and the sampling report confirms how the output is performing against your style. All documents — style reference, category list, sampling findings — are yours to keep.
If your team is considering how to use AI drafting tools in a controlled, consistent way — or is already using them informally and would benefit from a structured setup — get in touch to discuss what your workflow looks like.
Send us a messageOther services from Marsh Crest Field
We analyse your existing customer contacts to assess whether automation suits your specific enquiry mix. Covers analysis of past contacts and the effect on customers who would still require a person.
Learn more →Setting up search across your procedures, manuals and archives so staff find existing material. Permission structures follow existing entitlements. Suited to organisations holding a decade or more of documentation.
Learn more →