Capture enough context to reproduce the gap
Record the staff question, relevant conversation context and what the assistant returned. Include the source references it offered, if any, and the user role where that affects the permitted scope. Avoid copying unrelated personal or confidential material into a general improvement queue. Give the report a stable reference so staff can follow its progress. A label saying bad answer provides too little information to distinguish a missing source from a question the service was never intended to answer.
Check whether the request is clear and in scope
Ask whether the question identifies the subject, team or period needed for a useful answer. An ambiguous question may need a clarification rather than another document. Compare it with the agreed purpose of the service. If the user is asking for a decision reserved for a person, keep that boundary and route the request appropriately. The queue should not reward answers that exceed the approved scope merely because they reduce the number of referrals.
Separate missing material from unavailable material
Have the appropriate reviewer check whether an approved source exists and whether this user should be able to access it. A source may be absent from the collection, awaiting an update or correctly restricted. Record which situation the evidence supports. Do not infer that the content does not exist because one search did not return it. Equally, do not broaden access to a restricted source to satisfy a question without the authorised owner decision.
Assign the correction to the right owner
A document owner can resolve missing or unclear source content, while an implementation owner investigates a source that should be available but is not being used. Keep those tasks distinct. If the diagnosis remains uncertain, assign a bounded investigation with a next step. Group repeated reports when they share a verified cause, but preserve different user contexts where they matter. Acknowledging a report should not close it or imply that a correction has already reached the service.
Rehearse a fictional missing-process question
In a fictional business, staff repeatedly ask how to request a temporary equipment loan. The reviewer confirms that the approved collection contains purchase instructions but no loan procedure. The process owner decides what guidance should be published and supplies the approved material. The team then tests the original question and a related purchase question. Until the source exists, the assistant retains a truthful referral rather than adapting the purchase process and presenting it as the loan procedure.
Verify the response before closing the report
Repeat the reported question after the approved correction and inspect its supporting material. Check that the result addresses the original need without adding unsupported details. Record whether the outcome is a corrected answer, improved clarification or an appropriate referral that remains necessary. Tell the reporter what changed and why. Review recurring causes to plan further work, while keeping the sample and scope visible. A smaller queue is not evidence of better answers if legitimate uncertainty has simply been hidden.