When the wrong person approves technical claims, another broad rewrite or another batch of output may leave the underlying problem intact. Diagnose the relevant failure before changing the whole process.
Find the likely cause
Review ownership follows availability rather than knowledge.
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
Route specialized claims to someone able to verify them.
Human review is most valuable when it focuses on the claims, decisions, and contextual judgments that matter to the final reader.
Check that the repair worked
Confirm that the reviewer can explain the basis for acceptance.
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: reviewers focus on grammar while missing false facts. Check purpose and accuracy before sentence-level style.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track defects caught, defects missed, and review effort by content type.
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.