- 01
Define the workflow learning job
Treat “face mega” as a search job to investigate, not as proof that a SEELE feature exists. First turn the query into a repeatable sequence with explicit inputs, review points, and a reversible handoff. Write the intended audience, source owner, desired change, protected details, reviewer, and delivery condition before selecting any interface or model. That brief keeps the evaluation specific and makes an unsupported assumption visible early. During review, preserve the review copy, and ask the claims reviewer to record input provenance before the release review.
- 02
Prepare inputs for visual creation tools
For this topic, assemble a clear creative job, authorized references, required controls, reviewer expectations, budget context, and delivery format. Record where each source came from, who may use it, and what must remain unchanged. Use a small representative asset for the first pass, keep the original untouched, and define a fallback route so experimentation cannot silently become the production master. During review, preserve the evidence table, and ask the claims reviewer to record reversal cost before the release review.
- Confirm ownership, consent, and allowed reuse For the named reviewer, preserve the test fixture, and ask the rights reviewer to record human approval before the release review.
- Preserve an untouched source and version history For the named reviewer, preserve the review copy, and ask the accessibility reviewer to record failure conditions before the release review.
- Name the reviewer and acceptance condition For the named reviewer, preserve the brief version, and ask the production lead to record control availability before the release review.
- 03
Test observable controls for face mega
A bounded evaluation should inspect input support, controllability, source fidelity, revision behavior, governance, collaboration, and handoff readiness. Change one meaningful variable at a time and record the date, workspace, account context, input, setting, result, and failure. Topic selection can prioritize the question, but it does not establish availability, quality, speed, licensing, or a supported SEELE workflow. For the named reviewer, preserve the handoff draft, and ask the creative lead to record claim scope before the source comparison.
- 04
Review evidence, safety, and policy boundaries
Third-party names, pricing, features, access, and specifications require current dated first-party verification. Any identifiable face, body, or voice requires explicit permission, a legitimate purpose, disclosure where required, and a human check against impersonation or deceptive endorsement. For third-party products, competitors, plans, models, and platform rules, attach a verification date and primary source; an absent statement is an evidence gap rather than proof of a limitation. At this stage, preserve the handoff draft, and ask the accessibility reviewer to record input provenance before the rights check.
- 05
Approve a reversible production handoff
Before advancing “face mega”, use a matched test asset, record the date and account context, separate observations from claims, and document tradeoffs. Document remaining manual work, unresolved evidence, destination requirements, and the person accepting the result. The handoff should preserve sources and test notes, allow correction, and avoid promises about output quality, turnaround, business performance, publishing, or access that the evidence does not support. Before delivery, preserve the evidence table, and ask the factual editor to record human approval before the scope confirmation.