Review effort belongs in the cost calculation

A tool that produces a first draft quickly may still be expensive to use if every output requires careful correction. Measuring only generation time rewards speed while hiding the work transferred to reviewers.

Count the whole task: preparation, generation, verification, correction and downstream rework. Compare that with the previous method at a similar quality level. A faster first pass is useful only if the total process improves enough to justify the change.

Quality must be defined before measurement. A proposal with unsupported claims may be quick to approve if reviewers are not checking claims. That is not a productivity gain; it is a reduction in scrutiny.

Track error severity as well as frequency. Ten minor wording changes can matter less than one invented client result. The review process should concentrate attention where errors can alter commitments, reputation or buyer decisions.

Consider who does the checking. If an inexpensive tool saves junior time but consumes scarce senior attention, the economics may differ from the headline saving. This can still be worthwhile, but the tradeoff needs to be visible.

A good workflow makes review easier by preserving sources, flagging uncertainty and separating facts from suggestions. The aim is not simply to reduce the number of reviewers. It is to reduce unnecessary work while retaining the checks that protect the quality of the offer.