1System drift
The sign: the output stops matching your tokens and conventions, but still looks finished.
The check: compare it against the design system. The system is the source of truth, not the latest output.
AI rarely fails in an obvious way. It gives you work that looks finished and sounds confident, but is slightly wrong. So I let the model generate, and I stay the person who decides what we're aiming for and whether the result is good enough to ship.
Restate the goal as the work runs and check each result against it, so drift shows early. The brief that sets the goal comes from AI Project Setup.
Hold each output to the tokens and components already written down, so drift is something you can point to, not a matter of taste.
Nothing ships until it passes the checks, and a person signs off, not the model.
The work goes out under my name, so the judgment on it is mine.
A review pass that catches drift before it ships
AI made producing work cheap. So my value moved to the parts a model can't own: setting the standard, choosing which option is good, and making sure what ships is true. This playbook is how I work with every AI tool, so a plain instruction gets me work that actually fits my system, not work that only looks like it does.
"Stay in control" is advice nobody can act on. What helps is knowing the specific ways AI work goes wrong. There are seven. Each one has a sign you can learn to spot, and a check that catches it.
The sign: the output stops matching your tokens and conventions, but still looks finished.
The check: compare it against the design system. The system is the source of truth, not the latest output.
The sign: it answers the prompt but loses sight of the problem behind it.
The check: write the problem down and restate it, so you have something to measure the answer against.
The sign: it makes up file paths, metrics and APIs, and states them as calmly as facts.
The check: every claim has to trace to a real source. Sounding sure doesn't make it true.
The sign: it repeats your view back to you instead of giving the second opinion you asked for.
The check: ask it to argue the other side, then judge the argument, not whether it agrees with you.
The sign: it falls back to the most common pattern and drops the choices that made the work yours.
The check: the model has no taste of its own. You make the distinctive calls, every time.
The sign: in a long session, it brings back decisions you already rejected.
The check: keep decisions in a record and corrections in memory, not in the chat. The chat is not a record. AI Project Setup covers how.
The sign: each step passes review, but together they end up somewhere you never approved.
The check: review the whole thing, not just the latest change. At the end, check the work against what you set out to do.
Everything the AI gets before the work starts is in AI Project Setup: the rules files, the brief, memory for corrections, the checks and the session commands, in the order I put them in place.
This playbook starts once the work is running: how I spot drift, the phases I work through, and the checks every output has to pass before it ships.
This covers the whole process. The early phases turn a rough request into a clear goal. The later ones measure what shipped. For each phase, the table shows what I own, what the model does, the drift most likely to show up, and the check that catches it. My other playbooks plug in where noted below.
| Phase | You own | The model does | Most likely drift | The check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frame | The real question | Drafts ways to frame it, points out unknowns | Intent | Write the one line problem yourself, first |
| Discover | Which signals are real | Widens research, groups interview findings, drafts what pushes people to switch and what holds them back | Confidence | Every finding traces to a real source |
| Define | What's in and what's out | Proposes problem statements and scope options | Average | Name the bet, how success is measured, and what's out of scope |
| Design | The system and the taste | Generates options from the library of components | System | Tokens and components are the source of truth |
| Build | The architecture | Writes the code | Accumulation | Small changes you can review, with each file staged by name |
| Verify | The checks | Runs the checks and reports back | Confidence | Every check runs before anything is called done |
| Ship | The decision to release | Prepares the deploy | Accumulation | A restore point first, then a deploy that passes its checks |
| Grow | What to measure | Drafts experiments, reads the analytics | Agreement | Decide the metric, and when to stop, before the test starts |
This is what "a person makes the final call" looks like in practice. The first three checks run on every push to main, and a failure stops the deploy. The last two run in a browser test on my machine before a release. They are actually run, not assumed. If they pass, I sign off. If not, the work goes back.
Part of working with AI is knowing where it shouldn't be involved at all. These are the four cases.
AI aims for what sounds right. Checking that it is right is a person's job.
System. Intent. Confidence. Agreement. Average. Memory. Accumulation.
Guide the intent. Write down the standard. Make the final call. Own the result.
Dashes, structure, machine readability, render, contrast. All five must pass before I sign off.
The five checks, plus a final review, in plain text. The brief and the rules files that come before the work are in AI Project Setup.
# preship.md (the checks, run before shipping)
[ ] dash sweep clean (entities included)
[ ] no duplicate ids, tags balanced, anchors resolve
[ ] JSON-LD parses, inline scripts pass a syntax check
[ ] page loads in a browser test, render checked by eye
[ ] contrast measured on the real background, WCAG AA
[ ] whole reviewed against original intent, then signed
AI Project Setup is what the AI gets before the work starts. The Prompt Library puts this approach to work, one prompt at a time. Discovery to Scope finds the real problem before anyone builds.