Example AI project brief: new-inquiry replies
The small experiment: use approved business information to draft replies to one common inquiry type. A person checks and sends every reply. Compare total time with a saved reply template before connecting any live systems.
This is an illustrative project for a landscaping business, not a customer case study or a record of achieved savings.
1. Define the job
Trigger: a new request for routine lawn-maintenance information. Output: a concise reply that explains the next step and asks for missing information. The draft must not invent availability, prices, or service commitments.
2. Gather the source material
- Five invented or sanitized examples of this inquiry type.
- An approved list of services, operating hours, and service-area boundaries.
- A checklist of the information needed before a person can prepare a quote.
- One approved example reply and the name of its reviewer.
3. Set boundaries
The first version only prepares text. It does not send email, create bookings, change prices, or write to the customer database. Missing facts are flagged for the reviewer. Start with non-sensitive examples in a tool you are permitted to use.
4. Try a reusable instruction
Draft a reply using only the approved business facts and the inquiry provided. Acknowledge the request and ask for missing details needed for a quote. Do not invent a price, appointment, service area, or promise. If a necessary fact is unavailable, list it separately for the reviewer. Return a reply draft and a short list of facts to verify.
Supply the approved facts separately. A written instruction cannot guarantee correct behavior; the reviewer still checks every output against the source material.
5. Compare the complete task
| Measure | Current | Assisted |
|---|---|---|
| Tasks per week | 20 | 20 |
| Minutes per completed task | 10 | 5 |
| Hours per week | 3.33 | 1.67 |
The scenario saves about 1.67 hours per week. Two hours of setup would be recovered in about 1.2 weeks if those assumptions hold. This measures time, not financial return; fees and ongoing maintenance are additional. See the full calculation method.
6. Decide what counts as a pass
- Every factual statement matches the approved information.
- The draft asks for missing information instead of guessing.
- No unapproved promise, price, or appointment appears.
- Total preparation, drafting, checking, and correction time is five minutes or less per task.
Record each example’s time and whether it passes. Revise or stop if the reviewer cannot reliably catch important mistakes. A five-example check is a starting point for learning, not proof of reliability. Continue into a normal week only after the initial quality check passes.
7. Compare the simple alternative
Write a saved reply template using the same approved information and run the same examples through it. If the template is as useful and faster to maintain, keep the template. The goal is less work and a reliable result.