A convincing demonstration is a starting point. Before putting a workflow into use, the team needs evidence that it improves the job under realistic conditions.
I agree the test with the person who owns the result. Their standards determine what the build needs to achieve and which errors matter.
Compare the whole task
Record how the work happens today. Include preparation, waiting, review and correction. Compare the new workflow against that baseline using similar cases.
A draft produced in seconds may still take too long to fix. Track time to an acceptable result, alongside completeness and the issues the reviewer has to resolve.
Use cases that reveal the weaknesses
Choose examples of normal work and the exceptions your team encounters. Include missing information, conflicting sources and inputs outside the intended scope.
Write down what a good result should contain. For a document checker, that might mean finding known gaps, citing the relevant evidence and avoiding invented issues. Have someone with business knowledge define or independently check the expected results.
Keep enough evidence to review the result
Capture the source references, workflow version and test outcome. For work needing approval, record who reviewed the output and what they accepted. Match retention and access to the organisation’s requirements.
This makes it easier to investigate a failure and decide whether the cause sits in the source material, the instructions or the wider process.
Repeat the checks as the workflow changes
Keep the test cases with the solution. Run them when you change its instructions, tools or source material, and at an agreed interval. Add cases when users find a problem.
Use the results to decide whether to release, refine or pause a change. That gives the team a consistent way to improve quality without starting the review from scratch each time.