FAQs

Writing quality matters—but it’s table stakes. Most agency problems don’t come from bad prose. They come from meaning drift across revisions, unapproved interpretation, and inconsistent behavior under pressure. That’s why governance behavior matters more than surface-level polish.

Because the failure mode isn’t the format. It’s the system. Emails, blogs, proposals, and strategy docs all move through the same cycle of ambiguity, revision, and accountability. When an AI fills gaps or accumulates assumptions, the risk travels with the content—regardless of format.

“Safer” depends on predictability. Client-facing content usually benefits from systems that preserve intent, reverse cleanly, and minimize interpretation unless explicitly directed. The risk isn’t that AI will be wrong—it’s that it will be confidently different without clear ownership.

Extra review helps, but it doesn’t scale well. When teams don’t trust how a system behaves, they compensate by rereading everything. That increases friction, slows delivery, and quietly erodes confidence—even when outputs look fine.

Yes. This comparison focuses on behavior under ambiguity, revision, and constraint—patterns that persist even as models improve. Governance risk doesn’t disappear with better writing. It just becomes harder to notice.

Because QA is where unresolved decisions finally collide with reality. It’s the first place ambiguity is forced into a yes-or-no answer.

Some iteration is normal. Repeated late-stage fixes caused by unclear expectations are not. That’s decision debt, not healthy iteration.

Ask whether the expectation was explicit before work began. If it wasn’t clearly defined, QA didn’t miss it—leadership deferred it.

Because clients don’t experience defects as isolated events. They experience them as signals about care, discipline, and reliability.

Briefly. And then it speeds everything else up. Early friction prevents late disruption.

Force decisions earlier. Especially around scope boundaries, acceptance criteria, and tradeoffs. QA pressure drops when ambiguity does.

Because improvement is no longer scarce. Clients evaluate value comparatively, not absolutely. When similar-looking work is everywhere, leverage erodes even if quality rises.

Baseline inflation shows up quietly—shorter patience, thinner engagement, and faster comparisons. By the time dissatisfaction is explicit, pricing power has already weakened.

It’s different in speed and scope. AI compresses execution variance across the entire market at once, not gradually or category by category.

Execution still matters operationally. It just no longer signals expertise on its own. Utility persists. Differentiation doesn’t.

In judgment—how problems are framed, risks anticipated, tradeoffs named, and decisions integrated across context. That layer compounds when output plateaus.

Because rising expectations absorb efficiency gains. Faster delivery raises the bar instead of creating breathing room.

The DOJ Title II rule applies to state and local government digital services broadly, including existing websites and mobile apps. This means agencies managing legacy sites are just as exposed as those launching new builds. Waiting for a rebuild does not remove risk—it concentrates it.

No. WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the enforceable standard tied to DOJ enforcement. WCAG 2.2 may offer guidance, but it does not replace 2.1 for legal compliance. Confusing the two often leads to misplaced effort without reducing exposure.