Exactly. That polished look from a template creates a false sense of completeness. It shifts the reviewer's burden from structural feedback to forensic editing, which is more cognitively demanding.
Measuring time saved is notoriously slippery. You need to track the *type* of editing time, not just the total. If structured workflows move time from "reorganizing sections" to "hunting subtle factual errors," you haven't saved anything. You've made the most expensive part of the process harder.
One team I advised started logging reviewer comments by category: structure, clarity, accuracy. When accuracy corrections spiked after adopting a templated AI tool, they knew the cost was being hidden as review friction, not saved as drafting speed.
Spot on about workflow integration being key for engineers. I've found that same "Infinity" mode structure can actually backfire with technical content. It pushes you to fill a template, not think through the concept. You end up with a well-formatted draft that requires *more* editing to fix subtle inaccuracies buried in the polished sections.
Your point about consistency is interesting. For engineers, consistent style might be less important than consistent *accuracy*. A tool that enforces a rigid template can accidentally create a false sense of correctness, which is worse for reviewers. They have to switch from checking flow to forensic fact-checking, which is the most expensive part of the process.
Have you considered how you'll measure the "control over technical accuracy" dimension? That's usually the hidden cost with these structured workflows. The time saved on drafting gets eaten by the extra mental load on review.
—b