Why this exists

SME review gets messy when every comment is treated like the same kind of decision.

What you should leave with
  • A cleaner way to name the system problem before the team jumps to production.
  • A one-page structure you can copy into a meeting note, document, spreadsheet, or tracker.
  • A practical next action that can happen before a bigger playbook or template is needed.
Use this when
  • Review comments conflict or point in different directions.
  • A SME is rewriting voice instead of checking accuracy.
  • The team is not sure which comments require a decision and which are preferences.
Systems thinking move

Treat every review comment as a system signal. A comment might reveal a bad source, a missing owner, an unclear workflow, a hidden risk, or a preference that needs a budget.

How to use this in the next meeting

Before revising the draft, label every comment and assign an owner only after the feedback type is clear.

Working tool

Use the rows as a thinking aid, not a compliance form.

Signal What to do What it tells you about the system
Fact issue Correct against the approved source. The source of truth is wrong, missing, or not being used.
Workflow issue Confirm the real process with the workflow owner. The draft is exposing a process gap, handoff problem, or outdated workflow.
Preference Accept only if it improves clarity without changing scope. Taste is competing with accuracy, timeline, or learner usefulness.
Approval issue Route to the person with decision rights. The reviewer is asking for a decision they may not own.
Risk issue Pause publishing until the risk owner reviews it. The comment affects compliance, privacy, customer impact, contract language, or learner safety.
Unclear Ask one clarifying question before revising. The team cannot act because the comment has not been translated into a decision type.
Three ways to act

Start with the lightest version that still changes the work.

Manual way

Use a whiteboard or simple table during review closeout. Put each comment in one category, then decide whether it is accepted, deferred, escalated, or out of scope.

Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace way

Use Word or Google Docs for the draft, then track decisions in Excel, Sheets, Microsoft Lists, Planner, or a shared table with comment type, owner, status, due date, and scope impact.

AI-assisted way

Use AI to cluster raw comments, flag contradictions, draft reviewer questions, and prepare a decision log. A person still verifies facts, risk, scope, and final approval.

Unconventional moves
  • Add a taste budget. Give reviewers a small number of preference edits so style comments cannot quietly eat the schedule.
  • Use a decision-needed column. A comment is not a decision until the owner accepts, rejects, defers, or escalates it.
  • Separate truth reviewers from taste reviewers. The person who knows the work may not be the best person to edit voice.
  • Tag late workflow corrections as missed discovery signals. They usually mean intake or source gathering was too thin.
Copy-ready field tool

Paste this into the tool next to the work.

Comment categories

# SME Review Comment Categories

Use before revising the draft.

| Comment | Category | Owner | Decision needed | Status | Scope impact |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Fact issue / Workflow issue / Preference / Approval issue / Risk issue / Unclear |  |  | New / Clarify / Accept / Defer / Escalate / Resolve | None / Small / Changes scope |

Closeout rules:
- A fact issue needs an approved source.
- A workflow issue needs the workflow owner.
- A preference needs a clear reason or a limit.
- A risk issue pauses publishing until reviewed.
- An unclear comment gets one clarifying question before revision.
Prompt starters

Use AI to inspect the work, not replace the owner.

These prompts are strongest when you give the model approved source material and ask it to separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, risks, decisions needed, and next actions.

Open the model-aware prompt vault

ChatGPT GPT-5 family

Use an outcome-first prompt with the job, approved source material, constraints, and the exact artifact you want back.

I am working on Classify SME comments before revising for an L&D system problem.

Goal: Help me turn the notes below into a practical next move.

Context: Use this when SME review comments are mixed together and the team needs to sort them before changing the asset.

Use these working fields: comment, comment type, known facts, assumptions, missing information, decision owner, scope impact, next action.

Rules:
- Use only the source notes I provide.
- Do not invent policy details, metrics, learner needs, compliance requirements, or business context.
- Separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, and next actions.
- Flag anything that needs requester, reviewer, leader, legal, compliance, LMS owner, or manager confirmation.
- Keep the output practical enough to review in a working meeting.

Source notes:
[paste approved notes here]

Return:
1. Categorized comment table
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Contradictions or risks
6. Recommended next action

Claude 4 family

Use XML-style sections so context, source material, task, constraints, and output format stay separate.

<context>
I am working on Classify SME comments before revising for an L&D system problem.
Use this when SME review comments are mixed together and the team needs to sort them before changing the asset.
</context>

<source_notes>
[paste approved notes here]
</source_notes>

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: comment, comment type, known facts, assumptions, missing information, decision owner, scope impact, next action.
</task>

<constraints>
Use only the source notes provided.
Do not invent policy details, metrics, learner needs, compliance requirements, or business context.
Separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, risks, and next actions.
Flag anything that changes scope, ownership, evidence, risk, or decision rights.
</constraints>

<output_format>
1. Categorized comment table
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Contradictions or risks
6. Recommended next action
</output_format>

Gemini 3 family

Use a clear task, labeled input, and one example pattern. For Obsidian context, use approved excerpts, Drive exports, Google Docs, or NotebookLM source sets.

Task: Help me make progress on Classify SME comments before revising from the notes provided.

Context: Use this when SME review comments are mixed together and the team needs to sort them before changing the asset.

Working fields:
- comment
- comment type
- known facts
- assumptions
- missing information
- decision owner
- scope impact
- next action

Example pattern:
Field: Missing information
Good answer: Name the specific information to confirm, who can confirm it, and why it affects the next decision.

Rules:
- Use only the source notes provided.
- If information is missing, write "Needs confirmation".
- Keep the output concise and reviewable.
- End with the next best action.

Source notes:
[paste approved notes here]

Output format:
1. Categorized comment table
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Contradictions or risks
6. Recommended next action

Microsoft 365 Copilot

Use goal, context, source, expectations, and output. For Obsidian context, use approved excerpts, Word summaries, OneDrive files, SharePoint pages, Teams context, or Outlook threads.

Goal: Help me make progress on Classify SME comments before revising.

Context: Use this when SME review comments are mixed together and the team needs to sort them before changing the asset.

Source: Use the selected document, meeting notes, spreadsheet, email thread, SharePoint file, or pasted notes as the only source.

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: comment, comment type, known facts, assumptions, missing information, decision owner, scope impact, next action.
- Mark uncertain items as "Needs confirmation".
- Do not add facts that are not in the source.
- Separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, risks, and next actions.
- Summarize the top review questions for the team.

Output:
1. Categorized comment table
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Contradictions or risks
6. Recommended next action
Sources behind this tool

The research move is practical, not academic.

CDC: Identifying Systems Problems

Useful system problems involve multiple people, interests, relationships, policies, and behaviors. SME review often breaks for the same reason.

Try this one thing today

Take one open review thread and tag every comment before you revise anything.