Blog · Published · Updated
AI training for people who approve team outputs
Short answer
AI training for people who approve work teaches them to read material prepared with AI: find the source of a claim, compare the conclusion with the material and write feedback the author can act on. The key exercise is telling a factual error from missing information and from a style preference. At Syntalith team training costs from €1,150 net a day. With 8 people each saving 1 hour a week, it pays back in 1.1 months.
- net per day of closed training for the team
- from €1,150
- people in one training group
- up to 15
- after this time, we measure the effect on the same tasks
- 30 days
We belong to the OpenAI and Anthropic partner programmes and learn through their official courses. What this means ↓
Author: Syntalith · 3 min read
Statistics
Reviewing work done with AI: statistics 2026
1.1 mo.
payback of a €1,150 training at 8 people saving 1 hour a week each: €1,209 of time regained, €143 of licences a month. Scenario.
40%
According to a study published in Science (2023), ChatGPT cut the time 453 professionals spent on writing tasks by 40%.
Source: Noy and Zhang, Science (2023) ↗
25.1%
According to a Harvard Business School study (2023) of 758 consultants, tasks within the model's capabilities were done 25.1% faster with AI.
59%
According to Microsoft's Work Trend Index (2024), 59% of leaders worry about quantifying the productivity gains of AI.
Source: Microsoft and LinkedIn, Work Trend Index 2024 (2024) ↗
90%
According to the European Commission (2026), 90% of companies using AI say people take the decisions, and 2% of decisions are fully automated.
Source: European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 578 (2026) ↗
Figures checked: 22 October 2026
A recommendation with no explanation of the difference
A comparison of two offers ends with a recommendation for the cheaper option. The reviewer notices that the description does not explain the difference in the scope of service. Instead of writing the whole analysis themselves, or replying „please revise”, they ask the author to compare that part on the basis of both offers and to say whether the difference changes the recommendation.
Feedback like this tells the author what is missing and where to look for it. An unsupported conclusion needs a different response from a sentence the manager would simply have written more briefly. The reviewer may ask the tool for a list of the differences between the documents, but checks it personally, because asking the same model for a second review does not settle whether the first one was right.
- 01Sourcewhere the basis for a claim is
- 02Comparisonthe conclusion against the source material
- 03Type of feedbackan error, missing information or style
- 04Feedbackwhat to check, and where
- 05Triala new document to review alone
- Points to a specific place in the material
- Says what is missing or wrong
- Keeps an error apart from a style preference
- Leaves the fix to the author
What it costs and when it pays back
- Time saved
- 8 people × 1 h a week × 4.33 = 34.6 h
- Value of that time
- €1,209
- Licences
- $160 (€143)
- Left after licences
- €1,066 a month
Payback of a €1,150 training
1.1 months
The hours saved are the scenario's assumption, which we check by timing the tasks before the training and after 30 days. €34.90 an hour is the EU average hourly labour cost for 2025 according to Eurostat. Claude Team licences at $20 per person a month, at the ECB rate of 1.1205 USD per euro on 22 October 2026.
We measure the hours in the scenario before the training and after 30 days, on the same team tasks. If after a month checking AI texts takes as long as writing from scratch, we change the exercises or the scope of the tool.
According to a study in Science (2023), ChatGPT cut the time 453 professionals spent on writing tasks by 40%. For approvals we also measure the number of rounds a document goes through before it is accepted.
Responsibility stays with the company
The workshop helps describe what information the person who accepts the work needs, and when to go back for an explanation. The company still sets who has the authority to decide. If every small document waits for the same person because of how the process is organised, training will not solve it, and the split of decisions has to change. The CIPD recommends involving managers, experts and employees in identifying learning needs, because each of them sees a different part of the difficulty. In the sessions the author and the reviewer can swap roles.
Everything waits for one person
a new split of decisions
on the company's side
Feedback does not lead to fixes
training for reviewers and authors
from €1,150 a day
The same gaps in materials every week
a shared checklist and template
part of the training
Where to start
With the process owner we choose the documents that come back most often and set expectations for the finished version. For the call, describe a piece of material that goes back and forth between the author and the person who approves it. We run the workshop as part of team training. For the free analysis, a description of one task the team does every week and of the tools it uses is enough. You get the written training programme within 2 working days.
Worked example · Scenario
How we count the payback: authors and reviewers
We run the same count for your team in the free analysis.
€1,675
a month for preparing 12 management reports
Payback: 2.1 mo.
4 hours to prepare a management report and checking in 15% of the old time are our assumptions. €34.90 an hour is the EU average hourly labour cost for 2025 according to Eurostat, for companies with 10 or more employees. Model cost: checking the commentary in our reporting system (about €0.0002) plus compiling the data (Claude Sonnet 5.5, about 30,000 + 2,000 tokens), at the ECB rate of 1.1205 USD per euro on 22 October 2026.
See the full calculation →
