Automated report assembly can reduce repetitive writing and help teams use consistent document structures. It does not remove the need to confirm facts, evaluate evidence or approve conclusions. A report may be complete in appearance while containing an outdated response, an unresolved placeholder or a paragraph that does not fit the actual project.
An E-ASR report review should therefore follow the information from source material through questionnaire responses to the generated document. This checklist is intended to support an organization’s review process, not replace its professional requirements. Adapt the checks to the applicable project scope, assessment framework and edition, and have the responsible professional confirm what is required before issue.
Understand what the generated document represents
GAEA describes E-ASR as a workflow connecting project responses with predefined fields and conditional text to produce an editable Word document. The output is a draft for technical, regulatory and editorial review. A successful merge establishes that document assembly occurred; it does not establish that the investigation is sufficient or its conclusions appropriate.
Keep that distinction visible in the team’s procedure. Identify the point at which an assembled draft becomes a reviewed report and who can authorize that transition. Avoid placing an unreviewed output in a location where it could be mistaken for an issued deliverable. Draft status should be understandable to both the author and anyone receiving an internal copy.
Confirm scope, template and assessment basis
Before reviewing individual paragraphs, confirm that the selected template matches the commissioned work. Check the assessment type, intended use and any project-specific exclusions. A familiar template from a previous assignment may contain assumptions that do not apply to the current site. Record the template version and any approved modifications used for the draft.
Verify the applicable standard, edition and jurisdiction through the organization’s normal professional review. Do not infer applicability from a template name alone. If requirements have changed, determine whether the template needs revision and whether the project work meets those requirements. Document the decision instead of treating template selection as evidence of compliance.
Verify the project identity throughout
Check the client, site name, address, legal or project identifiers and report date. Review headers, footers, tables, appendices and document properties where relevant. A copied project reference can survive in a less visible location even when the title page is correct. Use a consistent authoritative source for these details.
Confirm that maps and photographs refer to the same site and assessment period. An old image may still be useful, but it should be identified accurately. Where a project includes several properties or investigation areas, make the distinction explicit. Clear identity information prevents evidence from one area being unintentionally presented as evidence for another.
Review questionnaire completeness and meaning
Inspect unanswered questions, default selections and free-text responses before relying on the merged narrative. A blank answer may mean unknown, not applicable or not yet completed; those meanings should not be interchangeable. Ask the author to resolve ambiguity or explain the limitation. Do not fill gaps with an assumed answer merely to complete the form.
Review whether each selected response accurately represents the evidence. A yes-or-no field can simplify document assembly while hiding a more nuanced finding. Use the supported explanatory fields or approved report edits to preserve important qualifications. The objective is a faithful account of the project, not simply a questionnaire without empty cells.
Trace significant statements to evidence
For material findings, identify the source document, observation, interview or result supporting the statement. Check dates and the relevance of that source to the claim. A historical record may establish a past condition without establishing the current one. The narrative should preserve that distinction rather than turning older information into an unqualified present-tense statement.
Sample the evidence trail across different sections of the report. Include both routine facts and conclusions that influence recommendations. If a reviewer cannot locate the basis for a statement, record the question and resolve it before issue. Evidence traceability makes the report easier to defend, update and hand over to another professional later.
Examine conditional paragraphs and transitions
Conditional text can make report preparation more consistent, but the resulting combination still needs to read logically. Look for contradictions between selected paragraphs, duplicated explanations and abrupt transitions. A paragraph appropriate to one answer may conflict with a qualification entered elsewhere. Review the complete narrative rather than approving each response in isolation.
Pay particular attention to statements of absence or completeness. Wording that suggests no issue was identified should match the scope and limitations of the work performed. If a source was unavailable or an area could not be inspected, the report should not imply that it was fully assessed. Clear limitations are part of accurate reporting.
Search for placeholders and inherited content
Check for unresolved prompts, bracketed instructions, sample text and references to an earlier client or site. Use targeted searches for known template markers, then read the document normally. Search alone may miss text that looks plausible but belongs to another project. Automated assembly does not prevent inappropriate reuse of source responses or manual additions.
Confirm that optional sections were intentionally included or omitted. An empty heading or blank table can suggest unfinished work, while a populated example table can be more misleading. Review appendices and supplementary material as carefully as the main narrative. They often contain the detailed information on which the report’s conclusions depend.
Review tables, figures and attachments
Match table values and identifiers to the accepted project dataset or issued laboratory information. Check units, qualifiers, limits and revision status where those details are relevant. Ensure the narrative refers to the same version of the table. A correct result in one part of the report does not compensate for an outdated value elsewhere.
Inspect captions, legends, figure references and appendix numbering. Confirm that maps have the context needed for their purpose and that photographs are labeled accurately. Open the files in the final package rather than assuming links or embedded objects will behave the same way on another computer. The reviewer should see what the recipient will receive.
Keep conclusions separate from document automation
The responsible professional should review whether conclusions follow from the evidence and the agreed scope. Check that recommendations address the findings actually described. Avoid treating a generated conclusion paragraph as an independent technical assessment. Its suitability depends on the accuracy and completeness of the information and decisions that led to its inclusion.
Read the executive summary against the detailed report. Summaries can lose important qualifications when they compress complex findings. Confirm that the main message remains accurate and that unresolved limitations are not hidden in an appendix while the summary appears definitive. Consistency between summary, findings and recommendations is a central issue check.
Control changes made after the merge
Decide which corrections belong in the authoritative questionnaire or project information and which belong only in the document. A factual correction usually needs to be carried back to the source used for future generation. Otherwise, the next merge can reintroduce the error. Record any document-only changes that must be preserved or reconsidered.
GAEA’s E-ASR FAQ notes that regenerating a report can replace manual changes made only in an earlier Word document. Compare a regenerated draft with the reviewed version and check affected sections deliberately. Do not assume that previously approved edits remain present after new responses are merged.
Complete editorial and output checks
After technical issues are resolved, inspect headings, page breaks, tables of contents, references and consistent terminology. Review the document at its intended page size and the final exported format. Tables that fit in the editable file may break awkwardly after conversion or when viewed with different software settings.
Check that tracked changes, comments and internal instructions are handled according to the organization’s issue procedure. Confirm that the final filename and revision correspond to the approval record. These are presentation and document-control tasks, but they affect whether the recipient can distinguish the issued report from earlier working material.
Record the review and close outstanding issues
Use a review log that identifies the issue, location, owner and resolution. Separate factual corrections, technical decisions and editorial changes. When a correction has wider implications, check the related sections rather than closing the issue after changing one sentence. Record the final reviewer and approval according to the organization’s responsibilities.
Retain the source responses, template version, supporting evidence and issued report in the project record. This makes a later amendment easier to investigate and reduces dependence on the original author’s memory. The archive should explain both what was issued and the information used to create it, subject to applicable organizational retention requirements.
Test the checklist on a representative report
Before adopting the workflow broadly, generate a representative report and have an independent colleague review it against the source information. Include an incomplete response and a changed fact as deliberate test cases. Observe whether the process exposes them and whether corrections survive regeneration. Record improvements to training or template configuration separately from product questions.
Evaluating report automation? Contact GAEA with a representative template, questionnaire requirements and the review process your team uses. The value of automation is a more repeatable route to a professional draft, with evidence and judgment still visible before the report is approved and issued.