A team has used Claude for six months to draft client proposals. A manager notices that reviewers now skim drafts in seconds and recently missed an invented case study that made it into a sent proposal. What is the most appropriate response?

Answer: B — Treat it as over-reliance: restore a genuine review step that checks specific claims such as case studies, figures and quotes.

A run of good results led to skimming instead of reviewing, which is over-reliance; restoring a real review that checks specific claims addresses the cause (b). No model removes the possibility of fabricated details (a). A ban (c) gives up real value when the problem is the process. A prompt instruction (d) may help, but without real review the next fabrication will also slip through.