A draft appearing in seconds does not mean it is ready to publish in seconds. I assess time savings across the path to an acceptable final version rather than at the moment of generation.
Identify the less visible work
Source checking, meaning corrections, removing repetition and language adaptation all take time. A polished-looking draft can make these tasks easier to overlook. Fluency should not conceal the editorial workload.
One hypothetical method may produce a fast draft requiring lengthy verification; another may begin slowly but need fewer corrections. Measuring only the first stage gives an incomplete comparison.
Separate the stages
Briefing, generation, review, revision and final checks can be tracked separately. Exact minute-by-minute recording is not always necessary; understanding where effort accumulates is.
Rework caused by an error also belongs in the assessment. Replacing a section built on an incorrect source is part of production cost, not an unrelated inconvenience.
Compare equivalent quality
A brief, superficial draft and a carefully sourced guide cannot be compared only by elapsed time. Scope and acceptance criteria should match. Speed alone is not an advantage when the reader’s question remains unanswered.
That is why a quality rubric should precede the timing comparison. Otherwise each method can appear successful under its own standard.
Evaluate by task
Generating options or organising material may be useful in some assignments. Evidence and accountability may dominate others. I assess the role of assistance according to the task rather than applying it uniformly.
Making editing time visible is a way to understand the actual workflow. It reveals where a saving exists and which stage still needs improvement.