If I ask an Agent to summarize several project records in Busabase, I need to check statements such as “this project is delayed” against the underlying information. What should I include in my request to get record references and a clear distinction between recorded facts and the Agent’s interpretation? What is a practical way to review the answer before sharing it with colleagues?
Ask the agent to make every material claim checkable, not just to append a list of sources at the end. In Busabase, a useful answer has three parts: recorded facts with the record link/ID, field and value used; interpretation explaining the rule applied; and unknowns where the records do not support a conclusion. For “Project A is delayed,” I would expect a cited planned date, actual/latest forecast date, status, and the definition of “delayed,” not just a plausible sentence.
Try this prompt: “Summarize these project records. For each conclusion, link the exact Busabase record or Doc, name the fields and values you relied on, and distinguish direct facts from your inference. Mark missing or conflicting evidence as needs verification. Do not cite a source you did not read. Draft the answer for review; do not share it externally.” Before forwarding it, open a sample of the links, compare quoted values with the current records, and check whether the records changed after the agent read them. Have an owner approve consequential conclusions.
Activity and Change Requests help trace who submitted or approved a record change. They do not automatically prove that a free-form agent answer used those records correctly; the answer itself needs explicit citations and human checking. What kind of statement causes the most concern in your reports: dates, budget figures, or the agent's interpretation?
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading is always open; you only need an account to post.
Sign in