The suggestion-commitment eval: the Ember Console box rule that keeps 'you could' out of 'I will'

The suggestion-commitment eval is one rule for one box: the commitments section fails when the line it quotes came out of your mouth instead of your client’s. I build Ember Console, a session-report builder for coaches, and it is in closed beta. This is the eval I would write before any other.

Side by side, the two sentences look like one sentence with the pronouns moved.

What does the suggestion-commitment eval check?

It checks who said the line. A commitments box can read well and still hand your client a plan they never agreed to.

A coach-tool builder on r/SideProject set the test as two near-identical lines. The coach’s “you could ask for a raise” and the client’s “I’ll ask for a raise” should, in his words, “land in different parts of the notes.” He wanted that run before a suggested next step reached a client’s follow-up email.

The same check sits outside coaching. AI Expert’s guide on keeping meeting notes accurate tells the reader to look at who owns each action item and whether it was decided or left open.

How do you write it into the commitments box?

Start with the rule rather than the prompt, and keep it to one sentence someone who was not in the session could mark.

1. Start with the box that holds agreed actions.
2. Write the eval before you write the prompt.
3. Fail any line the client did not say.
4. Try the rule on the last report you sent.
5. Allow “none this session” when nobody promised anything.

Step five is there because the first four would otherwise push a line into an empty box, and I wrote that case up as the none-this-session rule.

Every time an AI fills and builds the report it receives all your prompts and the eval system, and reworks each box until it passes the minimum standard you set. The landing page says the box system “checks each result against your own criteria.”

Shaping a rule a box can fail is the general job, with its own piece, and this one sits behind the coaching action plan box.

What is not stated yet?

Four questions about the box system are blank on my own fact sheet, and the answers are mine to publish.

1. What an eval may check: length, wording, a fact, a rule you typed.
2. What happens to a box that fails one.
3. How many reworks a failed box gets.
4. What you see when a box fails.

The first decides whether a rule about who spoke can be checked the way a word count can. Until I publish it, write the rule as you would say it to a colleague.

I would rather a commitments box come back empty than find my own suggestion sitting in it in my client’s voice.

Questions people ask next?

Are AI meeting notes accurate?

I have no figure for that and will not invent one. AI Expert’s guide on keeping meeting notes accurate gives the reader the job: check who owns each action item, and whether something was decided or left open.

How do you stop AI from inventing action items?

Write a rule the box can fail, then leave it a legitimate empty answer. If your client promised nothing this session, “none this session” has to be allowed, or the box fills itself from whatever was said near it.

Can an eval check who was speaking?

Not stated. What an eval may check is the first open question above, so keep your rule to something a person could mark pass or fail. The free plan runs four reports a month at $0, no card, enough to test your own rule.