Protect facts, commitments, and eligibility language
A policy or grant document may contain language that cannot be casually broadened: target populations, funded activities, reporting duties, legal terms, and measurable outcomes. Those facts should be treated as constraints, not raw material for a broad rewrite.
Marking the exact passage keeps the review request bounded. The surrounding draft is available as context only after an explicit AI Review request, while the reviewer decides whether every proposed change is acceptable.
- Name the sentence or phrase that creates the risk.
- State what must remain factually unchanged.
- Ask for clarification or qualification, not a new policy conclusion.
- Review the resulting tracked change against the source requirements.
Language revision is not compliance review
Revision Desk can make a sentence clearer, more bounded, or easier to defend. It does not determine eligibility, verify evidence, assess legal compliance, or confirm that a proposal meets a funder's rules.
For consequential submissions, keep the responsible subject-matter reviewer in the approval path and retain the source materials used to validate the final wording.
Make the approval trail legible
A good handoff explains what changed and why. Tracked DOCX output helps the author, program lead, or approver see textual insertions and deletions in Word rather than comparing copied drafts by eye.