City HR drafts job postings with a workplace generative assistant then has classification specialists edit them. What workplace AI practice does this model?

City HR drafting job postings with a workplace generative assistant then having classification specialists edit them models the correct workplace AI practice: using generative AI to draft municipal workplace content with mandatory human editing before anything reaches the career site. Specialists protect job grade accuracy, equity language, minimum qualifications, and legal compliance—capabilities draft models do not own alone. Using generative AI to draft municipal workplace content with mandatory legal review misidentifies the required edit, since the scenario requires classification specialists to edit for grade accuracy, qualifications, and equity language, not legal review alone. Using specialist drafts for municipal workplace content with mandatory human editing reverses the scenario's workflow, since specialists edit AI drafts rather than producing the initial drafts themselves. Using generative AI to draft municipal interview guides with mandatory human editing changes the HR product, since the scenario is about job postings for the career site, not interview guides, even though the draft-with-edit pattern looks similar. Exam caveat: workplace generative HR items select draft-with-mandatory-human-edit—not mandatory legal review alone, specialist-drafted content, or interview-guide drafting. Operational check: route AI drafts through classification and EEO review checklists; scrub biased or non-compliant phrasing; retain edit history for audit; prohibit mandatory-legal-review-only shortcuts, specialist-drafted starting points, or interview-guide drafting that bypasses mandatory HR specialist review of the job posting; and train hiring managers that generative speed never replaces human ownership of the posted municipal vacancy description.