Choose one of three approaches. The steps for that option appear below.
Choose an option above. On a phone, swipe the tabs left or right to see all options →
Gemini Notebook compares the two extracts and drafts correction questions. You and HR check before anything is used.
Choose excerpts
Compare extracts
Check the rows
Draft questions
Check and finish
Use: You
Have ready: the two record extracts and the correction request. Choose the authorised excerpts; keep source and effective-date distinctions for each discrepancy.
Check only material authorised for this review goes in. Do not modify records or overwrite history.
Use: Gemini Notebook
Add the excerpts to a notebook. Compare both extracts field by field with the request, keeping each value's source and date and leaving conflicts visible.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft discrepancy register separating each record value, source date and requested correction. Compare the two authorized extracts field by field with the correction request; retain each stated value, its source and effective date, leaving conflicts visible; open a private notebook, add only the cleared excerpts, ask in source chat and copy the returned text with its citation markers. Leave personnel records unchanged, draw no identity inference and keep each historical value distinct. Keep source markers and explicit still-to-confirm entries; return text for private human review without taking external actions.
Use: You
Check each row against the originals; correct mismatches and keep dates and unresolved entries.
Check each value and date against the extracts. Keep each historical value distinct.
Use: Gemini Notebook
Paste the checked table into the source chat and ask for proposed correction questions. Separate employee-requested values from each record's existing values.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft correction packet with field references, intended-value questions and retained conflicts. Assemble proposed correction questions from the checked discrepancy table, distinguishing employee-requested values from each record's existing values; paste the newly cleared table into source chat and copy the draft response for local editing. Leave personnel records unchanged, draw no identity inference and keep each historical value distinct. Keep source markers and explicit still-to-confirm entries; return text for private human review without taking external actions.
Use: You
Accept or reject each edit against the evidence and assemble the copy. Check intended-value questions against the request and both extracts. Keep unresolved conflicts.
Do not modify personnel records, infer identity or overwrite history. Keep source references, dates and unresolved facts. Release for confirmation only after both reviewers record the status. Do not infer protected traits or fabricate missing evidence.
You and HR map the discrepancies locally. Coda drafts correction questions in one pass.
Compare extracts
Draft questions
Check and finish
Use: You
Have ready: the two extracts and the correction request. Compare them locally; record values, source dates and intended-value questions without changing records.
Check only material authorised for this review goes in. Do not modify records or overwrite history.
Use: Coda
Open the AI chat in Coda, paste only the worksheet and ask for correction questions that separate requested values from each record's existing values.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Draft correction packet with field references, intended-value questions and retained conflicts. Assemble proposed correction questions from the minimized worksheet, distinguishing employee-requested values from each record's existing values; open Docs AI chat in a private document and paste only the cleared worksheet. Leave personnel records unchanged, draw no identity inference and keep each historical value distinct. Keep source markers and explicit still-to-confirm entries; return text for private human review without taking external actions.
Use: You
Accept or reject each edit against the evidence and assemble the copy. Check intended-value questions against the request and both extracts. Keep unresolved conflicts.
Do not modify personnel records, infer identity or overwrite history. Keep source references, dates and unresolved facts. Release for confirmation only after both reviewers record the status. Do not infer protected traits or fabricate missing evidence.
Coda drafts the first material. You and HR check every value and date. Grammarly only polishes checked text.
Compare extracts
Draft the material
Check the material
Suggest wording
Check and finish
Use: You
Have ready: the two extracts and the correction request. Compare them locally, keeping the two source histories separate; record values, dates and intended-value questions.
Check only material authorised for this review goes in. Do not modify records or overwrite history.
Use: Coda
Ask the Coda assistant to draft the material: one section per field with recorded values, source dates, the requested correction and open intended-value questions.
What to paste into the tool
Task: First draft correction packet with field references, intended-value questions and retained conflicts. Have ready: the discrepancy table with field references and conflict labels preserved. Draft only from the supplied material. Leave personnel records unchanged, draw no identity inference and keep each historical value distinct. Keep source markers and mark gaps openly; return text for private human review without taking external actions.
Use: You
Check each drafted value, source date and intended-value question against the request and both extracts; correct or reject draft lines.
Check every value and date against the extracts before any wording pass. Keep unresolved conflicts marked.
Use: Grammarly
Open a Grammarly Docs document, paste only checked passages and use Paraphraser for wording alternatives. Keep facts, quotes, source markers and conflict labels.
What to paste into the tool
Task: Suggested correction-request wording edits identified by original field and paragraph references. Open a private Grammarly Docs document, paste only checked personnel correction preparation passages and use Paraphraser to request wording alternatives while preserving factual values, quoted text, source markers and conflict labels. Leave personnel records unchanged, draw no identity inference and keep each historical value distinct. Keep source markers and mark gaps openly; return text for private human review without taking external actions.
Use: You
Accept or reject each edit against the evidence and assemble the copy. Check intended-value questions against the request and both extracts. Keep unresolved conflicts.
Do not modify personnel records, infer identity or overwrite history. Keep source references, dates and unresolved facts. Release for confirmation only after both reviewers record the status. Do not infer protected traits or fabricate missing evidence.
Best when: You want the extracts compared before you draft.
What it does: Gemini Notebook compares and drafts; you and HR check.
Strong at: Answers are grounded in your sources with citations.
Limit: Sources are capped at 500,000 words or 200 MB each.
Free plan: Yes, limited
Best when: You and HR should map the discrepancies before any AI step.
What it does: You and HR map the facts; Coda drafts the questions.
Strong at: AI assistant and AI columns inside one document.
Limit: Needs internet to open a doc.
Free plan: Yes, limited (1 GB attachments per doc)
Best when: You want a drafted material, then a wording pass.
What it does: Coda drafts; you and HR check; Grammarly rephrases.
Strong at: Grammarly suggests rewrites and tone fixes.
Limit: Paragraph-level rewrites work in six named languages only.
Free plan: Coda: limited (1 GB attachments per doc); Grammarly: 100 AI prompts monthly
Before you paste into any AI tool, remove any confidential information. Put it back at the end.
Employee and HR confirm intended values and retain unresolved conflicting evidence.
Leave personnel records unchanged, draw no identity inference and keep each historical value distinct.
Keep personnel correction preparation evidence locations, dates and unresolved items visible in the review copy.
Check the result against your original inputs. Approve it before sharing or acting.