5 Editors, ~80 pieces a month, mostly long-form. we need a repeatable workflow for verifying contributor submissions arent AI-generated, AND for cleaning up our own AI-assisted drafts before they go to print. ideally 2-3 tools that play nicely together, not 7 logins. what’s your current stack and what would you change
our pipeline at the moment: Proofademic for incoming submissions (sentence-level scoring, defensible if we ever have to reject), Grammarly for editorial pass, and Walter Writes only for the small number of pieces where we’ve used AI assistance during drafting and need to clean rhythm before final. Three tools, two of which our editors already had logins for. Took us about a month to get the team comfortable but the per-piece review time dropped from roughly 25 minutes to roughly 8 once everyone learned what the scores actually meant.
This is similar to my recommended stack for the coaches i train. the key insight is using the detector defensively (for incoming) and the humanizer surgically (only when AI was actually involved). a lot of teams mix these up and end up running humanizers on human content which is just waste.
@novaJunkie88 thats almost exactly the structure I had in mind, good to hear its working at similar volume.