A program manager uses an agentic workflow to draft customer release notes from 60 merged pull requests and linked issues. Drafts read well but mention features not shipped and omit a breaking API change. Which review practice best validates agentic workflow outputs before publishing?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Smooth writing can still ship fiction. You're fact-checking every claim against source evidence, like an editor verifying quotes before printing the story.
Full Explanation
Reviewing agentic outputs requires tracing each bullet to its source pull request or issue to confirm the change shipped, the scope is correct, and nothing critical like the breaking API change is missing or hallucinated, because fluency does not equal fidelity. Approving for grammar, tone, and formatting validates readability while letting invented features and omissions through to customers. Approving mostly correct drafts and fixing later accepts known incompleteness and shifts risk to customers who act on wrong notes. Comparing length and style to prior notes checks brand consistency but ignores factual grounding in current sources. For the exam, remember output review is source-grounded verification for accuracy and completeness first, then style, and a practical check is to require every note line to cite its pull request or issue number.