Skip to main content
AI can accelerate structured writing tasks. Clinical interpretation and regulatory judgement remain human responsibilities.

​
Purpose

This framework provides a practical model for deciding how much AI involvement is appropriate for a given task, and what review it requires. For an overview of why AI risk varies across medical writing tasks, common failure modes, and what makes a task higher risk, see Understanding AI Risk.

​
The framework

Four tiers classify AI use by the impact of error and the degree of human judgement required.

​
How to read the tiers

AI use becomes higher risk as either:
  • the impact of being wrong increases (a transposed HR in a CSR vs. a formatting error in an outline)
  • the task requires more interpretation (reporting a number vs. drawing a clinical conclusion from it)
The same workflow can sit in different tiers depending on how AI is used. Outlining a manuscript (Tier 1) is not the same as drafting the Discussion section’s interpretation of results (Tier 3–4).

​
Workflow mapping

Where each playbook workflow sits in the framework. Ranges indicate that the tier depends on how AI is used within the workflow. These mappings are not absolute. Risk depends on the source material, the context of use, the level of human review applied, and the consequences of error for the specific deliverable.

​
Review expectations by tier

What human review should look like at each level.

​
Tier 1 — Assistive

  • Confirm relevance and completeness
  • Verify key data points against sources
  • Check that structure matches the deliverable purpose
  • Standard medical writing review is sufficient

​
Tier 2 — Structured transformation

  • Detailed comparison between source and output
  • Check for meaning drift, dropped qualifiers, and shifted emphasis
  • Verify that safety information is preserved proportionately
  • Cross-check every clinical claim against the original

​
Tier 3 — Evidence-critical

  • Expert verification of every numerical value against source data
  • Confirm analysis populations, endpoint definitions, and statistical measures are correctly attributed
  • Verify that no AI-generated interpretation has entered the output
  • Spot-check unflagged content as well as flagged items

​
Tier 4 — Human authority required

  • Human controls the process from the start; AI assists with specific tasks (formatting, structuring, locating information)
  • Expert review of all wording, interpretation, and conclusions
  • No AI output enters the final deliverable without explicit human approval
  • Formal sign-off by a qualified professional

​
Where AI should not be the deciding layer

Regardless of tier, AI should not serve as the final authority for:
  • Clinical interpretation — whether a result is clinically meaningful
  • Regulatory conclusions — whether a document meets applicable guidance
  • Benefit-risk assessment — weighing efficacy against safety for a specific population
  • Compliance sign-off — whether content meets the requirements of a promotional code
  • Final approval — the decision that a deliverable is ready for submission, publication, or external use
These decisions require human expertise, accountability, and professional judgement. AI can provide supporting information, but a human must own the conclusion.

​
Using this framework in practice

For individual writers: Before starting an AI-assisted task, identify which tier it falls into. Match your review effort to the tier. If you are unsure, default to the higher tier. For team leads: Use the tiers to set expectations for AI-assisted work across your team. Define which tiers require senior review, which require source cross-checks, and which require formal sign-off. For client or stakeholder conversations: The framework provides a clear, defensible answer to “how do you ensure AI-assisted content is accurate?” You can point to the tier, the review process, and the accountability structure. When a task spans multiple tiers: Many real-world deliverables involve tasks at different tiers. A manuscript has Tier 1 outlining, Tier 2 Methods drafting, and Tier 3–4 Discussion interpretation. Apply the appropriate review to each component, not a single blanket review to the whole document.
Last reviewed: 15 April 2026 · 6 min read