Sample · fictionalised
Context Audit: findings and fixes
Summary
Fix the brief, not the model.
The AI tool isn't the problem. It's being asked to write product pages from supplier spec sheets alone, so it fills every gap with confident, generic copy. The facts customers actually return products over, like assembly, cushion care and what "weatherproof" means for this range, sit in the customer service team's heads and in old return notes. Neither the tool nor the copywriter ever sees them. Three changes, in this order, should cut most of the rewriting within one seasonal range.
The workflow examined
Every spring and autumn the business launches around 120 new products. The AI step was added last year to clear a backlog. It did clear the backlog. It also created the problem below.
- Step 1 Buying team Exports supplier spec sheets (dimensions, materials, finish codes) to a shared folder.
- Step 2 Breaks here Copywriter + AI tool Pastes each sheet into a chat tool with one standing prompt: "150 words, our brand voice, premium but friendly."
- Step 3 Copywriter Rewrites the draft directly on the product page.
- Step 4 Ecommerce manager Approves and publishes.
What is actually going wrong
“The AI copy is bland and we rewrite most of it.”
That's the symptom. Going through ten recent drafts in the session showed three separate failures underneath it:
4 / 10
Invented or inflated claims
Drafts called products "fully weatherproof". The supplier sheets said "weather-resistant frame", and the cushions are shower-proof only. The tool upgraded the claim because the prompt asked for "premium".
0 / 10
The wrong things left out
No draft mentioned assembly time, how many people it takes, or winter storage for cushions. These are the three most common reasons customers get in touch, before and after buying.
Every draft
Edits don't stick
Corrections are made on the product page, never in the prompt. Each new product starts from the same prompt, so the same mistakes keep coming back.
The rewriting isn't a quality problem with the AI. The copywriter is supplying, one product at a time, context the tool was never given.
The missing context
Nothing here is new knowledge. The business already has all of it. It just isn't anywhere the workflow can reach.
| Context the workflow needs | Where it lives now | Written down? |
|---|---|---|
| What "weatherproof" means for each material | The customer service lead's experience | No |
| Top return reasons and pre-sale questions, by category | Returns log and helpdesk, with no access for the content team | Not shared |
| What "premium but friendly" sounds like | Last year's two best product pages, never marked as the standard | No |
| Claims the business won't make | Separate mental lists in legal and customer service | No |
| Which supplier dimensions are packaged size, not assembled | The buyers | No |
Risks and consequences
Returns on bulky items
Overstated weather claims are the likeliest route to "not as described" returns. On this range, collecting one return costs more than the margin on the sale.
Misleading claims
Calling a product "weatherproof" when it isn't is a trading standards issue, not a tone-of-voice issue. Right now it's only caught if the approver happens to know the product.
The time saving isn't real
The team estimates that rewriting takes about as long as writing from scratch did. The AI step has moved the work, not removed it.
Scaling makes it worse
A second range is planned for next year. That doubles the number of drafts carrying the same gaps.
Three prioritised fixes
-
Start here
Fix 1: Write the claims rulebook
A one-page list of the claims the business will and won't make, by material, agreed by customer service and whoever signs off legal wording. It goes at the top of the standing prompt.
- Why first
- It removes the only risk that costs more than time, and it's the smallest piece of work.
- Effort
- Half a day, two people
- Owner
- Customer service lead
- Worked when
- No draft in the next range makes a weather claim that isn't on the list.
-
Fix 2: Replace the prompt with a product brief
A short brief per category in place of the one-line prompt. It sets out the facts every page must include (assembly, number of people, winter storage, assembled dimensions), gives two approved pages as the standard, and includes the rulebook. Corrections go into the brief, not only onto the page.
- Why second
- Most of the rewriting time goes here, and it needs Fix 1 in place first.
- Effort
- Two to three days across the first range
- Owner
- Copywriter, signed off by ecommerce
- Worked when
- Edits per draft drop noticeably. Measure on ten products before and after.
-
Fix 3: Feed returns data back in, quarterly
Once a quarter, customer service pulls the top five pre-sale questions and return reasons per category. They go into the brief as facts the copy has to answer.
- Why third
- It stops the brief going stale, and only pays off once Fixes 1 and 2 are working.
- Effort
- An hour a quarter, once the export is set up
- Owner
- Customer service, with the copywriter
- Worked when
- Pre-sale questions start to change, because the pages now answer the old ones.
Recommended next step
- This week
Start Fix 1. It needs nobody outside the business, and it removes the one risk that isn't just wasted time.
- Next range
Run Fix 2 on new products rather than going back over existing pages. Measure ten products before and after, then decide about the back catalogue.
- Optional
All three fixes can be done in-house. If you'd rather have help setting up the brief and the first quarterly loop, I can scope it as a separate fixed piece of work. Nothing here depends on it.
End of report