Skip to content
Founderz: Responsible Use of AI home

in collaboration with Microsoft

All scenarios

Workplace scenario · 11 of 13

You spot a wrong figure in a report you sent last week

Page 4 says 21%. The source says 12%.

The situation

Preparing a follow-up, you notice that last week’s AI-assisted report to three clients says 21% on page 4. The source says 12%. Nobody has mentioned it.

Principles involved

What do you do?

Choose the option you would take, then open it to see how it plays out. Reviewing the other options is part of the exercise.

Option A: Say nothing. Nobody noticed.

Risky

Someone may rely on it. If it surfaces later, the silence becomes the story.

Option B: Fix it in your copy for next time.

Part of the answer

Your copy is right. Theirs is still wrong.

Option C: Send the three clients a short correction today, and tell your team what happened so the check gets added.

The best choice

Quick, specific corrections build trust. Sharing what happened helps the team avoid the next one.

Option D: Blame the AI in the correction.

Risky

The report went out under your name, so the correction should come from you too.

Takeaway

Your name is on what you send. Correct early, and share what you learned.

Sources

What each source establishes, and its limits. The practices and recommendations on this page are ours, and the facts come from the sources. See every source we use.

  1. Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia · February 14, 2024 · Tribunal decision Rejected the airline’s argument that its chatbot was responsible for its own answers, held the airline responsible for all the information on its website and found negligent misrepresentation, awarding C$812.02. Limits: A small-claims decision in one province. No evidence was given about how the chatbot worked.