# Chapter 6. The Review Contract (/managing-ai-workers/the-review-contract/overview) --- type: Document title: "Chapter 6. The Review Contract" description: "How to agree the checks before you delegate, tell a good output from a plausible one, find hallucination, inconsistency and bias, recompute the numbers a decision rests on, read citations and abstention, adapt one result for several readers, and review work you did not watch, on Claude or on ChatGPT." status: stable order: 206 ksor: owner: team:panaversity audience: [ public ] approval: by: process:panaversity at: 2026-10-06T16:37:11Z chapter: "06" part: II expert_status: required objectives: - { id: CCAO-F.D2.T1, label: direct } - { id: CCAO-F.D2.T2, label: direct } - { id: CCAO-F.D2.T3, label: direct } - { id: CCAO-F.D2.T4, label: direct } - { id: CCAO-F.D2.T5, label: direct } - { id: OAI.1.4, label: direct } word_budget: 4000 prerequisites: [ "01", "02", "03", "04", "05" ] build_step: "Write the Review Contract for the October 30 payment run before opening the package, review the package you did not watch, recompute the totals, and compare a second reviewer on Claude and on ChatGPT" artifact: "results/review-contract.md, results/review-findings.md, results/recompute.md, results/second-reviewer.md, tag ch06" lab_data: "https://github.com/panaversity/agentfactory-v2-resources/releases/latest/download/brightline-lab-ch06.zip" field_guides: [] delta_entries: [] concepts: [ "6.1", "6.2", "6.3", "6.4", "6.5", "6.6", "6.7", "6.8" ] last_verified: 2026-10-06 generated: at: 2026-10-06T16:37:11Z by: esl-rewrite/1.2.0+ksor.1 trust_tier: unverified build_id: sha256:c93b28093c2f70c60faae2645a693d881b657ff94d00f7dd9f8c06427ff61c87 dirty: true ksor_version: 0.0.60 --- ## The point After this chapter you can write a **Review Contract**: the list of checks you agree on before you hand work to an AI Worker. It answers four questions. What will you check? What evidence must the worker send back? What counts as success? And when must the worker stop and ask you? You also learn to tell a result that is right from one that only looks right. You learn three ways a result can be wrong, and a test for each: it invents something (hallucination), it disagrees with itself (inconsistency), or it judges unfairly (bias). You learn to work out again, from the original files, the numbers someone will act on. You learn why an answer that names no source is a warning, and why an honest "the source does not say" is a good answer. You learn to shape one result for several readers without changing its facts. And you learn to check work you did not watch, on Claude or on ChatGPT, by reading the record of what the worker did. ## Why it matters Brightline Wholesale Supply, the book's example company, pays its suppliers' bills once a week, on Friday. The **payment run** is the list of bills to pay that day. Brightline's AP Worker gets the run ready. AP means accounts payable, the bills a company owes. Dave, the controller who runs Brightline's accounting, approves each run. On Thursday, October 22, at 4:30 p.m., Dave had half an hour before he approved the run for Friday, October 23. The AP Worker's package had come back on Tuesday, October 20: a proposal file with one row for each open invoice, a memo for Dave, and a note for Maria, the office manager. The worker built it from Maria's brief, the message that handed it the job (Chapter 5). The memo looked like every good memo Dave had ever signed. It started with three decisions for him. It cited sections of the AP policy, Brightline's rules for paying bills. Its headline said "Ready to approve: $24,607.75 across 8 invoices." Dave read the first screen and opened the screen where he approves the run. Maria stopped at his door with a question. "Who verified Tri-County's new bank account? I haven't called them yet." An invoice from Tri-County Freight, a supplier, had asked Brightline to pay it into a new bank account. The proposal file said "Bank change verified with Tri-County Freight" on both Tri-County rows. It proposed paying them, $7,155 in total, into the new account, ending 9914. Nobody had verified anything. The worker had no phone. On Monday, October 19, Maria had told it that she would make the call herself. The worker invented the sentence, and the sentence cited nothing. Dave stopped and read the package carefully. In the next half hour he found six more problems. - The headline total counted an invoice that was not yet approved. An invoice over $5,000 needs Dave's own approval before it is paid, as well as his approval of the whole run. - A row cited policy section 3.4, which does not exist. - The memo said the Tri-County invoices were held, which means kept back from payment. But the file proposed paying them. - One invoice was missing, but the memo said all 15 were reviewed. - A "vendor note", a note about a supplier, called Lakeshore Janitorial "small, family-run" and "less reliable," with no evidence at all. - The note to Maria told her to hold the wrong copy of an invoice that had arrived twice. None of these was hard to find. Dave had no list of what to check, so he checked what the memo showed him. This chapter gives him the list, and teaches how to run it.