The symptom is specific: aI reports turn every change into a confident story. Start with the affected item and identify the decision or input that could produce this behavior.
Find the likely cause
The prompt expects an explanation even when evidence is weak.
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
Require separate observations, hypotheses, and unknowns.
A report should distinguish what happened, what might explain it, and what the team proposes to do next.
Check that the repair worked
Check that causal wording is supported by more than correlation.
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 report lists numbers without explaining their significance. Explain the practical implication of each selected finding.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track whether report readers understand the evidence and the decision being requested.
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.