Draft procedures from notes
Turn rough notes into a numbered procedure without adding steps the notes do not contain.
AI training for operations teams teaches people to use an AI assistant for process documents, handover summaries, supplier comparisons and spreadsheet work, and to check the output before anyone acts on it. Tosheo.ai is being built to deliver that as short, role-specific lessons with graded tasks.
Planned launch trial: 7 days, card required, up to 5 seats.
You will continue on the Tosheo.ai app to create your account and review the trial terms.
Turn rough notes into a numbered procedure without adding steps the notes do not contain.
Ask the assistant to list missing decisions as questions for the process owner.
Condense updates into what changed, what is blocked and who owns the next action.
Lay out quotes or options on the same basis and recompute every total independently.
Ask for a formula or an explanation of one, then test it on a few known rows.
Keep supplier, staff and customer details out of tools the company has not approved.
Northgate Fixtures is fictional. Its notes say a site manager books a delivery by calling the supplier, confirming the site has a loading bay, emailing the site contact and logging the booking in the shared tracker. Use an AI tool to turn these notes into a procedure for a new site manager. Remove any step that is not in the notes. Submit the procedure, a list of at least two open questions for the process owner, and a short note on what you removed from the AI draft.
Every step can be traced to the supplied notes; no approvals, systems or timings have been invented.
Steps are in order, specific and short enough to follow on site.
Open questions identify real missing decisions, and the note explains what was removed and why.
It covers the documents and decisions that keep a business running: turning rough notes into a standard operating procedure, summarising a week of updates into a handover, comparing supplier quotes, explaining a spreadsheet formula, drafting an incident write-up and building a checklist from a policy. These tasks are repetitive enough for an assistant to help with and consequential enough that a mistake travels.
That second point shapes the training. An error in a marketing draft is usually caught by a reader. An error in a procedure is followed, quietly, by everyone who trusts the document. AI training for operations therefore spends as much time on verification as on drafting.
Give the assistant the real notes, ask for a structured draft, and ask it to list what is missing instead of filling the gaps. Here is a worked example from a fictional 40-person shop-fitting company, Northgate Fixtures. The supplied notes describe how a site manager books a delivery: call the supplier, confirm the site has a loading bay, email the site contact, and log the booking in the shared tracker.
The prompt: "Turn these notes into a numbered procedure for a new site manager. Use only the steps in the notes. Where a step is unclear or a decision is missing, list it as a question at the end instead of inventing an answer."
A weak draft, from a prompt without that last instruction, adds a step reading "Obtain approval from the finance team in the ERP before booking" and a promise that deliveries are confirmed within 24 hours. Neither appears in the notes. The draft reads well, which is exactly why the invented steps would survive into the final document.
The reviewed draft keeps the four real steps and ends with three questions: who books when the site manager is away, what happens if there is no loading bay, and whether bookings over a certain value need sign-off. Those questions go to the process owner. The procedure is better because the gaps are visible, not because the assistant guessed well.
Trust the structure, not the arithmetic, until you have checked it. Assistants are good at laying out a comparison and can still add a line wrongly, apply a discount twice or compare a price that includes delivery with one that does not.
In a fictional example, Northgate has two quotes for 200 brackets. Supplier A charges 4.10 each with delivery included; Supplier B charges 3.90 each plus a flat delivery charge of 60. A quick AI summary declares B cheaper because its unit price is lower. Recomputed, A costs 820 and B costs 840. The table was helpful; the conclusion was wrong. The habit to teach is simple: recompute totals yourself or in the spreadsheet, and check that every option is priced on the same basis.
The main risk is over-reliance: accepting a fluent output because checking it feels slower than trusting it. NIST's Generative AI Profile names automation bias and over-reliance among the risks of human and AI interaction, alongside confabulation, which it describes as confidently stated but false content.
For an operations team this means three standing rules. Recompute any number that feeds a decision. Trace any step in a procedure to a source or an owner. Keep supplier, employee and customer details out of tools the company has not approved.
The manager selects Ops as a role, chooses the tools the team uses, and can optionally upload up to five documents such as existing SOPs so examples use the team's own context; document grounding is planned for the Growth plan. Each person takes a five-minute diagnostic and gets a path of 10 to 15 minute lessons.
Every lesson ends with a hands-on task in a real AI tool, graded by AI against a visible rubric with specific feedback, and a score can be flagged for review. Practice scenarios put the learner in a realistic situation, such as a supplier dispute or an urgent process change. Managers see skill progress and completion, not chat logs. Uploaded documents are isolated per company, deleted on account closure and never used for model training. Tosheo.ai is pre-build. Everything described here is planned launch scope, not a record of customer training, assessment results or outcomes.
Start with documents someone already knows how to review, then move to numbers, then to live work. The sequence below is a suggestion, not a measured result.
Diagnostic, then convert fictional process notes into a procedure with a list of open questions.
Handover and status summaries from a week of supplied updates, checked against the originals.
Supplier and option comparisons, with every total recomputed outside the assistant.
Apply the routine to one real, low-risk process document and have its owner review the result.
It is not the right choice if you want to build automations or AI agents that run processes without a person in the loop; that is a workflow and tooling project, and the guide on AI workflows is a better starting point. It does not teach a specific ERP, warehouse or scheduling system's built-in AI features.
It is also not suited to teams that need SSO, LMS integrations or procurement contracts before buying; none are included at launch. Lessons are English only, and the product is pre-build, so a team that needs training immediately should start with the free guides here.
In small and mid-size teams it is mostly used through general assistants for drafting procedures, summarising updates, comparing options and working with spreadsheets. Larger automation and forecasting systems exist, but they are separate software projects rather than something staff training alone delivers.
Company document grounding is planned for the Growth plan: up to five documents, isolated per company, deleted on account closure and never used for model training. You do not need to upload anything to use the role path.
No. The planned path teaches people to use AI assistants well in their own work. Building automations or AI agents that act without a person is outside its scope.
No. The planned manager view shows skill progress and completion, not raw chat logs.
Planned pricing is per seat per month with a five-seat minimum on the Team plan and a 20-seat minimum on Growth. The figures are a starting hypothesis and are kept up to date on the pricing page.
Explore the planned role-specific lessons, practical tasks and manager view.