Reviewers focus on grammar while missing false facts. 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
Surface polish draws attention away from substance.
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
Check purpose and accuracy before sentence-level style.
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
Use a separate claim review for consequential assertions.
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: every draft receives the same review depth. Adjust review effort to factual complexity and intended use.
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.