WorkBuddy writes supervision minutes too reassuringly; hesitant to archive directly

Yesterday I came across a 2026 AI survey stating that usage for psychological companionship is growing rapidly, and that in a quarter of cases, AI takes over thinking, producing a bunch of "junk." Reading it made me sleepy, but then more alert. People have already discussed WorkBuddy's automation of supervision minutes and screenshot merging errors. For this post, I want to take a different angle: can what it writes go directly into archives?

Last week I used WorkBuddy to organize supervision minutes. It wrote the next-step suggestion as "Allow yourself to take it slow; today was enough." As a counselor, I understand clients need reassurance. But this is a case library, not a message wall. My goal is simple: merge Tencent Meeting transcriptions, PDF records, and handwritten screenshots according to a fixed template, generating an archivable document every Friday. The template includes client, topic, risk, and next steps. Sometimes it works fine, but sometimes it suddenly gets gentle, writing the risk field as "She might just need to be seen." Worse, when exporting tables, it says some files couldn't be recognized and were skipped. I don't know which ones. Later, changing screenshot DPI to 100% reduced merge errors slightly, but output content remained unstable.

I now suspect the problem isn't just in the automation path or screenshot format. WorkBuddy lacks boundaries in professional recording scenarios. Is it organizing facts or filling in emotions? Which content comes from original records, and which did it generate itself? If it silently skips files and turns risk assessments into comforting words, I can't archive its minutes directly.

So I want to ask a narrower question. In counseling records/supervision minutes where auditability is required, how should prompts or template constraints for WorkBuddy be written to make it less empathetic and more format-compliant? For example, forcing it to only quote original text without generating suggestions; requiring source annotations in the risk field; listing filenames for unrecognized files instead of skipping them silently? Has anyone tried similar constraints to make the output feel more like an archival tool?