Step 5 of 7

Review & Adjust

Use human judgment to finalize ratings with professional integrity

Human Final Authority

The CTR™ Framework positions you as the final authority over your attribution. While AI systems provide objective self-assessment, you maintain the right to make adjustments based on context, nuance, and professional judgment.

Why AI Self-Assessment Works

AI systems have no ego, reputation concerns, or cognitive biases affecting their self-assessment. When asked to evaluate their contribution honestly, they provide remarkably accurate assessments because they have complete access to conversation history and no motivation to inflate their contributions.

Your Role

You provide final human oversight to ensure the attribution accurately represents your collaborative relationship while maintaining professional integrity and transparency standards.

Getting Detailed Assessment Narratives

If you want to understand how your AI reached its conclusions, you can ask for a detailed narrative about their assessment process. This can help you identify areas where adjustments might be warranted or simply give you confidence in the accuracy of their evaluation.

💭
Ask for Assessment Details
"Can you walk me through how you assessed each domain? What specific examples from our conversation led you to assign the percentages you did? Were there any areas where you were uncertain about your assessment?"
This helps you understand the AI's reasoning and identify any missed context or misunderstandings.

When to Accept vs. When to Adjust

Generally Accept When:
  • The reasoning is clear and well-supported
  • The percentages align with your experience
  • The domain breakdown makes logical sense
  • The overall rating feels accurate
  • The collaborative description is comprehensive
Consider Adjusting When:
  • Context AI missed or couldn't assess
  • Professional background that shaped approach
  • Strategic decisions made "between the lines"
  • Quality standards or professional judgment calls
  • Domain rebalancing for accuracy
  • Technical corrections to calculations

Maintain Professional Integrity

Your final rating should honestly represent the actual collaboration and would withstand scrutiny from colleagues or clients. Adjust for accuracy, not appearance.

Systematic Adjustment Process

When making adjustments, follow a systematic process to maintain transparency and integrity:

1
Review Assessment
Read through the AI's complete assessment including domain analysis, reasoning, and evidence provided.
2
Verify Accuracy
Double-check that percentages add up to 100% and that all numbers make sense. AI can make calculation errors.
3
Identify Issues
Clearly identify which specific domains need adjustment and the concrete reasons for each change.
4
Document Rationale
Provide clear reasoning with examples for each adjustment and explain how it improves accuracy.
5
Verify Integrity
Ensure your final rating honestly represents actual collaboration and maintains professional credibility.

Check the Math

AI systems can make calculation errors. Always verify that percentages add up to 100% and that individual domain assessments make logical sense. While especially rare with Claude, mathematical mistakes can happen with any AI system.

Adjustment Examples

✓
Appropriate Adjustment Example
ORIGINAL AI ASSESSMENT: Conceptual Origin - Human 80% | AI 20% ADJUSTED RATING: Conceptual Origin - Human 95% | AI 5% RATIONALE: The AI assessment didn't account for the 15 years of consulting experience that shaped the entire strategic framework. While AI provided some research context, the core methodology came from proprietary approaches developed through client work that weren't explicitly discussed in our conversation. IMPACT: This adjustment better reflects that the foundational concepts were entirely human-developed, with AI providing supporting research rather than contributing to core framework development.
This adjustment addresses legitimate context that AI couldn't assess, with clear reasoning and specific evidence supporting the change.
✗
Inappropriate Adjustment Example
ORIGINAL AI ASSESSMENT: Overall - Human 70% | AI 30% PROBLEMATIC ADJUSTMENT: Overall - Human 90% | AI 10% PROBLEMATIC RATIONALE: "I want to look more authentic to my audience and don't want people to think I rely too heavily on AI." WHY THIS IS WRONG: This adjustment is based on external perception management rather than accuracy. It misrepresents the actual collaboration and undermines the framework's integrity.
This adjustment violates professional integrity by prioritizing appearance over accuracy and misrepresenting the actual collaborative process.

Professional Integrity Standards

Quality Assurance Questions

Before finalizing any adjusted rating, ask yourself:

?
Colleague Test
Would I be comfortable defending this rating to a colleague or client?
?
Accuracy Test
Does this accurately represent what actually happened in our collaboration?
?
Motivation Test
Am I adjusting for legitimate accuracy reasons or ego protection?
?
Credibility Test
Does this maintain my professional credibility authentically?

Professional Positioning

Your final rating should prioritize truthful representation of actual contribution patterns, professional competence demonstration through authentic collaboration, and transparent value creation showing how AI enhanced rather than replaced expertise.

Common Adjustment Scenarios

Undervalued Strategic Input
When AI rates your conceptual contribution lower because strategic thinking wasn't explicitly articulated during collaboration.
  • Adjust conceptual origin percentage upward
  • Document strategic decision-making influence
  • Provide evidence of framework guidance
Personal Experience Integration
When personal or professional experience shaped content even when not explicitly discussed.
  • Adjust personal experience domain appropriately
  • Document authentic insights that influenced work
  • Explain experiential foundation for decisions
Continue to Step 6: Format Your Attribution Back to Step 4
LONG FORM VERSION
CTR™: Bonnie Bonnie Dunigan 55% | AI Claude 45%

Collaboration Story: Bonnie provided creative direction, user experience strategy, and design vision throughout iterative development sessions. She guided aesthetic decisions, navigation structure, content organization, and professional presentation while maintaining creative control.

Claude handled HTML/CSS development, responsive design implementation, interactive features, and technical architecture under Bonnie's strategic direction.

?
Your personal CTR© workspace. take notes. save scripts. create your CTR©.

my ctr workspace

notes on: social media examples

Typing Sound:
Cushioned
Mechanical
Minimal
Satisfying

take note.

👤 Personal Micro-signatures

Upload your personal or brand icons (auto-resized to 16x16 for proper display):

Drag & drop images here or click to browse
PNG, JPG, SVG with transparent background recommended

🤖 AI Collaboration Icons

Choose an icon to represent AI collaboration:

Scripts for setting up collaboration boundaries and expectations with AI assistants.
No boundaries scripts saved yet.
Copy templates from boundary setup pages to get started!
Scripts with instructions on how to use and measure the CTR framework with AI.
No instruction scripts saved yet.
Copy templates from instruction pages to get started!
Scripts for formatting your published content with proper CTR attribution.

🤖➡️✨ Paste from AI & Apply Micro-signatures™

👤
🤖
Workflow:
1. Copy template from page → Paste to AI
2. AI personalizes with your details
3. Paste AI response here → Apply micro-signatures
4. Edit if needed → Copy for publishing