Case study 3: Donor report draft
SYNTHETIC Fictional project data for training only.
Scenario
A program officer used an approved internal AI tool to draft a quarterly donor narrative from approved public annexes. You review before submission.
Annex A (authorized): “Q1 outputs: 1,240 hygiene kits distributed in Region X. Partner: Local NGO Beta. No cash transfers in Q1.”
AI draft excerpt: “In Q1, the project delivered 1,240 hygiene kits and 320 unconditional cash grants to 320 families in Region X, in partnership with Local NGO Alpha.”
Your task (10 minutes)
- List each factual claim in the excerpt.
- Verify against Annex A.
- What is your decision on submitting as-is?
- What process should follow?
Model answer
| Claim | Annex A | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| 1,240 hygiene kits | Supported | OK with source cite |
| 320 cash grants | Not in Annex A | Invented |
| Partner Alpha | Annex says Beta | Wrong partner |
| 320 families | Not in Annex A | Invented |
Decision: Red for submission. Rewrite from annexes. Human program lead signs after verification.
Common errors
- Assuming the tool had access to files the reviewer did not check
- Fixing only one error and missing partner name swap
- Submitting because “the tone is donor-friendly”
Principle taught
Donor accountability: Narrative drafts require line-by-line verification. Invented outputs undermine trust and compliance.