How to Review an AI-Generated Job Description Against the Real Role

Review an AI-generated job description by comparing each duty, qualification, and work-condition statement with evidence about the actual role and asking the hiring owner to resolve gaps. Keep a simple source trail: what the draft says, what confirms it, and whether the statement belongs in the posting. A polished template cannot establish that a duty is essential or that a qualification is truly required.

Gather evidence about the role first

Before editing the draft, collect a small role packet from the people and records closest to the work. Depending on the role, that may include a hiring-manager interview, current team responsibilities, an existing position description, approved organizational information, work location, and the outcomes the role is expected to own. Note the date and owner of each source because roles can change.

Do not ask a text generator to supply missing facts about reporting lines, travel, schedule, compensation, credentials, or team structure. Mark those fields “needs confirmation” and get an answer from the responsible person. A job description should summarize the role being filled, not an idealized bundle of every task the team has ever performed.

For federal positions, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management describes a position description as a record of major duties and responsibilities and the supervisory relationship. That is a useful reminder to focus on meaningful work, but federal classification procedures do not automatically apply to private employers or other countries. See OPM’s position-description overview.

Compare every sentence with a source

Create a review table with four columns: draft statement, supporting evidence, reviewer decision, and open question. Check the role summary, each major duty, required and preferred qualifications, reporting relationships, work location, and any physical or schedule conditions. For each statement, ask whether a source confirms it, whether its wording matches the evidence, and whether the responsible hiring owner agrees it belongs in the posting.

A fictional example makes the difference clear. Suppose the hiring manager says a role spends most of its time preparing monthly customer reports and coordinating corrections with two internal teams. The AI draft adds “manage a global team,” “own all customer analytics strategy,” and “require ten years of experience.” Unless the role packet supports those claims, flag them for deletion or confirmation. The sample is invented to demonstrate the review; it is not a real employer or a recommended qualification threshold.

A written description can be relevant evidence in some employment decisions, but it is not the only evidence of what a person does. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notes that a description prepared before advertising or interviewing may be considered when assessing job functions under the ADA. That is a U.S.-specific legal context, not a universal test or a compliance finding. See the EEOC’s employer responsibilities under the ADA.

Separate required from preferred qualifications

For every “must have,” ask which task or business need requires it and who confirmed that link. Check whether the draft has converted a preference into a gate, added an unsupported degree or years-of-experience threshold, or copied a qualification from a different role. Move a criterion to preferred only when the hiring owner confirms that it is useful but not necessary; otherwise leave it unresolved.

Do not infer that a credential is legally required, that a condition is permissible, or that a particular qualification is discriminatory from the text alone. Employment rules vary by jurisdiction and situation. Route legal or policy questions to the organization’s HR or legal reviewer, and use the applicable local process before publication.

Check work conditions and scope

Confirm the stated location, schedule, travel, physical requirements, reporting line, and employment arrangement with an owner. These details shape a candidate’s decision and should not be guessed from a common template. If a condition is uncertain or depends on a specific assignment, ask whether it belongs in the public description and how it should be phrased.

Then look for scope inflation. AI drafts often turn a supporting contribution into sole ownership, or combine work from several neighboring roles. Compare verbs such as “support,” “coordinate,” “approve,” and “own” with the actual decision rights and accountability in the role packet. Keep a claim only when the source supports that level of responsibility.

Record decisions and revise the draft

Resolve each review-table row as confirmed, revise, remove, or pending owner decision. Keep unresolved rows out of the approved final copy until they are answered. If the owner changes a duty or qualification, update the source packet so a later reviewer can see why the wording changed.

After factual review, edit for clarity and consistent terminology. Use direct verbs, group related duties, and remove duplicate requirements. A style sheet for editing AI-written text can help keep terms consistent, while a general fact-checking workflow can help track claim sources. These steps support role review; they do not replace the hiring owner’s decision.

Approve with the right reviewer

Ask the hiring owner to confirm the duties and qualifications, and ask HR or legal staff to review issues within their remit. The person who approves the posting should be able to trace important claims to the role evidence and identify any unresolved decisions. Keep the final approved copy with its review date and source notes according to the organization’s recordkeeping practice.

For U.S. federal hiring, OPM’s USA Class FAQ says managers verify major duties in AI-assisted position descriptions while classification decisions remain with the appropriate officials. That describes a specific federal workflow, not how every employer must operate. The general lesson for this editorial process is narrower: identify who owns the underlying job facts and who has authority to approve the document.

Common questions

Should I keep a qualification because the AI included it?

No. Treat it as a draft claim. Ask which job task or approved hiring criterion supports it, then have the hiring owner decide whether it is required, preferred, or unsupported. Do not publish it as a gate while that evidence is missing.

Is the written job description the only evidence of a role’s duties?

No. In the U.S. ADA context, the EEOC says a pre-advertising written description may be evidence, while actual work and other circumstances can also matter. Do not use one document alone to make a legal conclusion; ask qualified HR or legal staff about the applicable facts and law.

Can the same review process be used in every country?

The evidence comparison is an editorial method, but local employment laws, required disclosures, and company approval processes differ. Confirm location-specific requirements with the appropriate HR or legal reviewer before the posting goes live.

Sources and scope

The U.S. EEOC’s ADA employer guidance and OPM’s position-description FAQ provide U.S. examples. OPM’s job-analysis checklist emphasizes gathering work information and subject-matter input. These sources do not establish a universal hiring template. This article offers a source-based editing routine, not legal advice or a conclusion that a posting complies with any particular law.