Tool selection depends on one lucky output. The useful response is a targeted correction with an observable acceptance check. That keeps the repair tied to the problem instead of turning it into an open-ended redesign.
Find the likely cause
A variable system is judged from a single run.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Repeat a small set of representative tasks.
A content tool should be evaluated on representative work, total operating effort, and the constraints of the actual team.
Check that the repair worked
Inspect consistency and failure patterns rather than the best example.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: the team adopts a tool that does not fit its workflow. Test the complete path from input to approved output.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track accepted output per unit of total effort, along with failure modes and workflow fit.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.