Documents, exports, and surgical revisions

Turning five event notes into a one-page volunteer brief is the most ordinary useful thing these tools do. The check that makes it trustworthy is accounting for all five — a brief that reads beautifully while silently dropping the note about the key collection is worse than no brief, because it will be used.

So review by input, not by output. Go note by note and find where each one landed. Names and times get checked individually, because those are what people act on and what a fluent summary will happily approximate.

Then open the result outside the chat. A document that looks fine in a conversation can lose its table formatting, wrap badly, or quietly drop a heading on export. Save it, open it in whatever will actually be used to read it, and look — this is a five-second check that catches an embarrassing class of problem.

Revise surgically. Give feedback on one section, then compare versions to confirm nothing else moved. This is the failure that catches people out: you ask for a clearer timings section and get a regenerated document where an approved quantity has quietly changed. Diff the two versions rather than re-reading the new one — you're looking for unrequested changes, and re-reading is exactly how you miss them.

Loading your workspace…