If an error is blamed on the model without workflow changes, start by preserving one representative example. It gives the investigation a concrete reference and makes the eventual correction easier to judge.
Find the likely cause
The review process is left untouched.
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
Identify the missing input, check, or ownership decision.
When generated content contains a false claim, the repair should address both the affected material and the process that allowed it through.
Check that the repair worked
Add a targeted check that would catch the same failure again.
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: a false claim keeps returning in revised drafts. Correct the authoritative input and remove contaminated examples.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track recurrence of the same error type and the completeness of affected-asset corrections.
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.