How to use this page

Use this as a working artifact, not a reading assignment. First check whether the problem matches your situation. Then copy the template structure into the tool your team already uses. If you use AI, give it approved source material and keep a human review step before making decisions.

What you should leave with
  • A clearer version of the problem this template is meant to solve.
  • A first draft you can review with the requester, reviewer, leader, or owner.
  • A short list of missing information, assumptions, and next actions.
The problem this helps with

SME review stalls because every kind of feedback gets treated the same.

What this changes

SME review gets easier when we stop treating every comment like the same kind of problem. A fact issue, a workflow issue, a preference, and a risk concern need different owners.

  • What would happen if reviewers had to label their feedback before the team revised anything?
  • Which comments are really changing the work, and which are preferences?
  • Where are we asking one reviewer to make decisions they do not own?
Where this fits in the system

This sets up the review layer of the system. The goal is to make feedback sortable, owned, and actionable so review does not keep reopening work that should already be stable.

Use this when
  • Review comments mix facts, preferences, legal concerns, workflow changes, and style edits.
  • One SME is expected to approve everything.
  • Review cycles keep reopening scope after the asset is nearly finished.
What to have ready
  • The review comments in one place.
  • The source material the asset should match.
  • The names of people who can approve facts, workflow, risk, and final decisions.
Start this in 15 minutes

Start small enough that the work can move today.

  1. Paste the review comments into one shared tracker.
  2. Label each comment before responding to it.
  3. Assign an owner only after the feedback type is clear.
  4. Close review by naming what changed, what did not, and what still needs a decision.
Conversation script

Use this when you need the words.

  • I want to keep review from turning into one overloaded approval step.
  • Can we separate facts, workflow issues, preferences, risk concerns, and approval calls before we revise?
  • That will help us fix what needs fixing without reopening the whole asset every time someone has a preference.
How to decide

Use the answers to choose the next move.

Fact issue

Correct the content against an approved source.

Workflow issue

Confirm the real process with the workflow owner before revising.

Preference

Accept only if it improves clarity without changing scope or timeline.

Approval issue

Route to the person with decision rights.

Risk issue

Pause publishing until the risk owner reviews it.

When not to use this
  • The asset is still in discovery and is not ready for SME review.
  • The reviewer has not been told what kind of feedback is needed.
  • The review requires formal legal, compliance, or customer approval outside the L&D process.
Working template

Copy this structure into the tool you already use.

Field Prompt Filled example
Fact issue Is the content inaccurate or missing required detail? The approval threshold is wrong for enterprise accounts.
Workflow issue Does the process shown in the asset differ from how the work actually happens? The asset skips the handoff from sales ops to customer success.
Preference Is this a style, wording, or example preference that does not change accuracy? Reviewer prefers a different screenshot order.
Approval issue Who has the authority to make the call? Legal needs to approve the customer-facing disclaimer.
Risk issue Could this create compliance, privacy, contractual, or operational risk? The scenario includes customer data that should not appear in training.
Decision What changed, who owns it, and does the timeline need to move? Workflow issue accepted. Content owner will revise the handoff section before final SME check.
Copy-ready artifact

Paste this into the tool next to the work.

Blank version

# SME Review Checklist

| Field | Notes |
| --- | --- |
| Fact issue |  |
| Workflow issue |  |
| Preference |  |
| Approval issue |  |
| Risk issue |  |
| Decision |  |

Completed example

# SME Review Checklist example

| Field | Example |
| --- | --- |
| Fact issue | The approval threshold is wrong for enterprise accounts. |
| Workflow issue | The asset skips the handoff from sales ops to customer success. |
| Preference | Reviewer prefers a different screenshot order. |
| Approval issue | Legal needs to approve the customer-facing disclaimer. |
| Risk issue | The scenario includes customer data that should not appear in training. |
| Decision | Workflow issue accepted. Content owner will revise the handoff section before final SME check. |
Try this one thing today

Label every review comment before responding: fact issue, workflow issue, preference, approval issue, or risk issue.

Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace

Use Word comments, Google Docs comments, Excel, Sheets, Planner, or Microsoft Lists to add a feedback type, owner, decision, and status to each review item.

AI-assisted help

Use AI to group review comments by type, draft clarifying questions, and flag comments that change scope or decision rights.

Prompt starters

Use these when AI can help shape the first draft.

Use these as starting points, then adjust them to your approved tool, source material, and review standard.

Open the model-aware prompt vault

Classify review comments before revising

Use this when SME comments are mixed together and the team is losing time deciding what each comment means.

I am sorting SME review comments for an L&D asset.

Review comments:
[paste comments here]

Classify each comment as one of these types:
- Fact issue
- Workflow issue
- Preference
- Approval issue
- Risk issue
- Needs clarification

Return a table with:
1. Original comment
2. Feedback type
3. Why it fits that type
4. Recommended owner
5. Suggested response to the reviewer
6. Whether this changes scope or timeline

Rules:
- Do not resolve facts without source material.
- Flag anything that needs a human decision.
- Keep reviewer responses calm and specific.

Validation checklist

  • Every comment has a feedback type.
  • Every accepted change has an owner.
  • Preference comments do not quietly change scope.
  • Risk and approval issues are not resolved by the designer alone.
  • Check every fact against an approved source.
  • Mark anything AI guessed, inferred, or could not confirm.
  • Remove private, sensitive, or customer-specific details that should not be in the working file.
  • Confirm the right human owner approves the final decision.
  • Review tone, accessibility, and learner impact before anything goes live.

Platform-specific starters

ChatGPT GPT-5 family

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

I am using the SME Review Checklist for an L&D workflow.

Goal: Help me turn the rough notes below into a practical first draft of the template.

Context: SME review stalls because every kind of feedback gets treated the same.

Use these template fields: Fact issue, Workflow issue, Preference, Approval issue, Risk issue, Decision.

Rules:
- Ask clarifying questions if the notes are too thin.
- Do not invent facts, policy details, metrics, or source material.
- Separate what is known from what needs human confirmation.
- Keep the output practical enough to review in a working meeting.

Rough notes:
[paste notes here]

Return:
1. Completed first draft
2. Missing information
3. Risks or assumptions to review
4. One recommended next action

Claude 4 family

Use clear XML-style sections so Claude can keep context, task, constraints, and output format separate.

<context>
I am using the SME Review Checklist for an L&D workflow.
SME review stalls because every kind of feedback gets treated the same.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical first draft using these fields: Fact issue, Workflow issue, Preference, Approval issue, Risk issue, Decision.
</task>

<constraints>
Do not invent facts, policy details, metrics, or source material.
Separate what is known from what needs human confirmation.
Flag anything that changes scope, ownership, risk, or decision rights.
</constraints>

<output_format>
1. Completed first draft
2. Missing information
3. Review risks
4. Recommended next action
</output_format>

Gemini 3 family

Use a structured task with an example pattern. For Obsidian context, use approved excerpts, Drive exports, Google Docs, or NotebookLM.

Task: Complete a first draft of the SME Review Checklist from the notes provided.

Template fields:
- Fact issue: Is the content inaccurate or missing required detail?
- Workflow issue: Does the process shown in the asset differ from how the work actually happens?
- Preference: Is this a style, wording, or example preference that does not change accuracy?
- Approval issue: Who has the authority to make the call?
- Risk issue: Could this create compliance, privacy, contractual, or operational risk?
- Decision: What changed, who owns it, and does the timeline need to move?

Example pattern:
Field: Fact issue
Good answer: The approval threshold is wrong for enterprise accounts.

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

Notes:
[paste notes here]

Microsoft 365 Copilot

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

Goal: Create a first draft of the SME Review Checklist.

Context: SME review stalls because every kind of feedback gets treated the same.

Source: Use the selected document, meeting notes, request thread, or pasted notes as the only source.

Expectations:
- Fill these fields: Fact issue, Workflow issue, Preference, Approval issue, Risk issue, Decision.
- Keep uncertain items marked as "Needs confirmation".
- Do not add facts that are not in the source.
- Summarize the top three review questions for the team.

Output: Return the completed draft, missing information, and one recommended next action.