AI tools are getting very good at producing extra things nobody asked for. NotebookLM can now turn a source notebook into short videos. It can also produce audio, reports, mind maps, quizzes, decks, and other nice-looking artifacts from the same pile of source material. That sounds useful until you picture the meeting. Someone drops in a generated video. Then a deck. Then a summary. Then a quiz. Everyone is impressed for twelve seconds, and now the work has changed from "understand the source" to "review six shiny outputs from a tool nobody fully understands." This is how AI turns research into clutter. The useful thing is the source packet: notes, links, claims, caveats, decisions, and examples that someone can trace back without doing archaeology. If the generated video helps someone use that packet faster, fine. If it creates one more thing to review, skip it. Before you let one of these artifacts into a real workflow, make somebody answer five questions:
What decision, behavior, or handoff does this improve?
Can we export it in a durable format without losing source context?
Can a reviewer trace every important claim back to the source?
Does sharing it expose private notes, client material, or internal context?
Would this still be useful if the polish disappeared?
If the answer to any of those is fuzzy, keep it out of the workflow. Use it as a demo. Use it to learn the tool. Fine. But do not tell yourself the team got smarter because a button made a video. Pick one artifact your team is already generating with AI. Write down:
who reviews it
where the source lives
what decision it supports
where the approved version goes
If you cannot fill that in, the artifact is not part of the system yet. It is just another tab somebody has to close. Reply with the artifact your team is producing right now that has no review path.