Chasing disclosures without pasting the forms

What you’re making

Two things you can send or file: a set of chase emails in your voice, and a relevance draft that asks whether a relationship you already know about is relevant to this content. Optionally, a mitigation note written against a step your office already uses.

You are not making a determination the tool is allowed to own. ACCME Standard 3 is identify, mitigate, disclose. The identify and mitigate steps are yours. The tool is for wording and for a second pair of eyes on relevance after you already have the facts.

What to have open

A roster: name, role (planner, faculty, reviewer), what you asked for, when, and whether it is in.

For the relevance step only: the activity title, the educational content in a sentence, and any relationship you are allowed to process, written as role plus company plus whether it is ineligible. No amounts. No tax IDs. No attachments.

Your house mitigation options, copied from your own policy. The tool does not invent mitigation.

The prompt

Write in my voice, using this profile:
[paste your saved voice profile]

I need disclosure-process emails for an accredited activity. Do not mention any company, product, amount, or the content of anyone's relationships.

ACTIVITY: [title, date, format]
WHAT I NEED FROM EACH PERSON: [our form / confirmation of no relationships / updated form]
DEADLINE: [date]
WHAT HAPPENS IF IT IS LATE: [they cannot control content / session is postponed / other]

ROSTER (process status only):
[Name, role, last asked on DATE, status: not asked / outstanding / received]

Write one email per outstanding person. Under 90 words. One ask. If this is a second or third chase, name the date I last wrote and make the ask smaller if a smaller version exists.

Then write one confirmation email I can send to people whose forms are already in.

I am screening whether a financial relationship is relevant to this accredited activity. I am the decision-maker. Draft a relevance note for me to accept, edit, or reject.

ACTIVITY TITLE AND CONTENT (what learners will be taught):
[paste]

PERSON AND ROLE IN THE ACTIVITY:
[planner / faculty / reviewer]

RELATIONSHIP, AS I AM ALLOWED TO STATE IT:
- Nature of relationship: [e.g. consultant, researcher, speaker, employee, owner]
- Company: [name]
- Ineligible company? [yes / no / not sure]
- Relationship to the educational content, in my words: [paste, or "not sure"]

Rules:
- Use only the facts I supplied. Do not look up the company, the person, or the products.
- Do not decide for me. Give a recommended finding: relevant, not relevant, or not enough information.
- If not enough information, list the two questions I still have to answer.
- If relevant, do not invent a mitigation step. Wait for my list.

Then stop.

We have already decided the mitigation step. Write it up for the activity file in plain words.

PERSON AND ROLE: [paste]
WHY THE RELATIONSHIP IS RELEVANT: [one sentence I wrote]
MITIGATION STEP WE ARE USING: [paste the exact step from our policy]
WHO CARRIED IT OUT AND WHEN: [paste]
EVIDENCE WE WILL KEEP IN THE FILE: [peer review form / revised slides / recusal / other]

Write a six-to-ten line file note. No adjectives. No claim that the relationship has been "cleared". Name the step and the evidence.

Turn two is the one people will want to skip into a tool with the PDF attached. That is the failure. The value of turn two is the “not enough information” branch, which stops you filing a confident note on a guess.

How to check it

Roster pass. Every name, date, and status in the emails is one you typed.

Sensitivity pass. Search the draft for company names, drug names, and dollar figures. Chase emails should have none. Relevance notes should have only what you supplied.

Decision pass. If turn two chose “relevant” or “not relevant” and you disagree, your finding wins. File your finding.

Mitigation pass. The file note names a step that exists in your policy. If the draft added a step you do not use, delete it.

Where it goes wrong

It pastes the form for you. Never attach a disclosure PDF to an unapproved chat. If a colleague asks the tool to “read this COI form,” that is the incident.

It decides relevance from a company name. Models know what companies sell. That is not a review of this content. Your content sentence is the evidence.

It invents mitigation. “Let them speak but add a slide” is not a step unless your office already uses it.

It sounds like legal clearance. Your file note records a process. It does not certify that the person is unbiased.

Chasing disclosures without pasting the forms · bettermethod.ai/recipes/disclosure-chase/ · Last reviewed August 2026
These tools change often. Check the review date before you rely on anything product-specific in here, and check the guidance against your own accreditor and organization policies.