- 01
Define the tool evaluation job
Treat “promptomania” as a search job to investigate, not as proof that a SEELE feature exists. First clarify the requested job, observe current controls on a bounded test, and document workflow fit and evidence gaps. 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. In the decision log, preserve the test fixture, and ask the channel editor to record format readiness before the bounded test.
- 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. In the decision log, preserve the rights memo, and ask the identity reviewer to record revision intent before the editorial approval.
- Confirm ownership, consent, and allowed reuse For the named reviewer, preserve the source ledger, and ask the brand reviewer to record claim scope before the acceptance review.
- Preserve an untouched source and version history For the named reviewer, preserve the brief version, and ask the factual editor to record visible continuity before the acceptance review.
- Name the reviewer and acceptance condition For the named reviewer, preserve the review copy, and ask the workflow owner to record input provenance before the acceptance review.
- 03
Test observable controls for promptomania
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 input snapshot, and ask the release approver to record control availability before the acceptance review.
- 04
Review evidence, safety, and policy boundaries
Third-party names, pricing, features, access, and specifications require current dated first-party verification. Use only authorized media, separate observed behavior from marketing language, and check current first-party documentation for any product-specific claim. 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. Before moving on, preserve the failure note, and ask the workflow owner to record input provenance before the source comparison.
- 05
Approve a reversible production handoff
Before advancing “promptomania”, 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. For this checkpoint, preserve the input snapshot, and ask the factual editor to record evidence freshness before the dated decision.