QC Checklist — Session Recap Email

Run this checklist before sending. Every "No" requires a fix.

Voice Check

• [ ] Read the opening out loud. Does it sound like Kathryn talking, or like AI writing about Kathryn?
• If it sounds like a coaching podcast, rewrite it.

• [ ] Count the adjectives in the first paragraph. Are there more than two?
• "Great session" is fine. "Really encouraging," "solid progress," "great to see" in the same paragraph is AI stacking.

• [ ] Is there a sentence that narrates behavior? ("You did X, and that shows Y.")
• State what happened. Don't explain what it means about them as a person.

• [ ] Is there a sentence that could appear in any recap for any client?
• If you can swap the name and it still works, it's too generic. Add a specific.

• [ ] Does the closing sound like a person or a motivational poster?
• "Have a great weekend," = person. "You're building real momentum!" = poster.

Structure Check

• [ ] Opening is 1-2 sentences, max one paragraph?
• References something specific from the call. Not a summary of the session.

• [ ] Quote reflection (if included) is under 3 sentences?
• Quote + one sentence on why it matters. No elaboration paragraph.

• [ ] "What We Covered" uses one line per topic, not nested sub-bullets?
• If any topic has more than 2 lines, compress. This is not the internal recap.

• [ ] Action items say "Before our next session:" not just a flat bullet list?
• Groups the recipient's items with that framing.

• [ ] Action items are in third person for Kathryn? ("Kathryn's Action Items" not "My Action Items" or "What I'm working on")
• Match the 2/19 format.

• [ ] Sponsor/boss action items included (if recipient is a coachee)?
• With "(from prior sessions — still outstanding)" note.
• Don't include items the coachee has no reason to know about.

• [ ] No "General Check-In" section?
• Fold into opening or drop. It's not a section.

Content Check

• [ ] Every action item is specific enough to act on without re-reading the recap?
• "Walk bookkeepers through the SOP" = clear. "Follow up on that item we discussed" = not.

• [ ] Wins are factual, not editorialized?
• "Phase 3 initiated with the bookkeeping team" = factual. "Phase 3 initiated with the bookkeeping team — great work!" = editorialized.

• [ ] Outstanding items from prior sessions are included with source noted?
• The recipient should know what's carrying forward, not just what's new.

• [ ] Due dates are included where explicitly stated?
• "Tomorrow (Feb 27)" / "Monday (Mar 2)" — not assumed dates.

• [ ] Subject line follows the format: [Topic]: [M-DD-YYYY]?
• Not "Recap of our session on [date]"

Comparison Check

• [ ] Pull up the prior email to this person. Does this one match the tone and structure?
• Same sentence length, same paragraph density, same level of warmth.

• [ ] Is this email shorter than or equal to the internal recap (Part 1)?
• If the email is longer than the recap, something is wrong. The email is a subset, not a restatement.

• [ ] Does the "What We Covered" section have fewer items than Part 1's "What We Discussed"?
• Drop low-substance topics. Compress the rest.

AI Tell Scan

Read the full email and flag any of these patterns. If you find one, rewrite that section.

• [ ] No "That's exactly..." constructions ("That's exactly the kind of...")
• [ ] No "I want to highlight..." or "I want to come back to..." unless it's genuinely how Kathryn introduces a quote (check the golden example)
• [ ] No stacked encouragement (two or more encouraging statements back to back)
• [ ] No explanatory clauses after simple statements ("...and that's important because...")
• [ ] No future-state promises ("We're not there yet, but we will be" — cut it or make it specific)
• [ ] No exclamation points unless Kathryn uses them in the golden example

Ship Criteria

Ship when:

• All voice check items pass
• Structure matches the golden example
• Action items are specific and grouped
• A stranger reading this would think a person wrote it

Don't ship when:

• Opening paragraph is longer than 3 sentences
• Any section mirrors the internal recap's structure verbatim
• You can identify 2+ AI tells
• The email is longer than the internal recap
• Closing sounds like a LinkedIn comment