When a Bespoke AI Tool Falls Short: What Would You Do?

You are a writer at a medical communications agency supporting development of the first draft of a manuscript reporting primary results from a phase 3 clinical trial. At your client's request, you are using the pharmaceutical company's internally developed generative AI tool as part of the drafting process.

Initially, the tool performs well, but as you develop the manuscript, you notice that it occasionally misinterprets study findings, overstates the clinical relevance of certain results, and inconsistently summarizes safety data. These issues can be corrected with careful human review, but doing so substantially reduces the expected efficiency gains. The publication timeline is tied to an upcoming scientific congress, and any significant delay could affect the planned communication strategy.

Your client explains that the AI platform has been approved for internal use and is expected to be used on all publication projects. Reverting entirely to manual drafting would likely affect project timelines and budget. The authors have not yet reviewed the draft and are unaware of the issues you have identified.

What Would You Do?