Many organizations are embracing generative AI to accelerate content creation. Tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and LLaMA offer speed and linguistic fluency. However, when applied to structured or compliance-sensitive content, they often introduce serious risks.

The issue isn’t their writing ability — it’s their inability to follow structured rules essential to enterprise content operations. Public GPTs aren’t trained to honor your schema, metadata logic, or publishing framework. Instead, they replicate patterns from public data — and while these patterns may appear correct — they can fail validation, localization, or compliance checks.

Gartner predicts that “at least 30% of generative AI (GenAI) projects will be abandoned after proof of concept by the end of 2025, due to poor data quality, inadequate risk controls, escalating costs, or unclear business value”.

Rita Sallam, distinguished VP analyst at Gartner, adds: “After last year's hype, executives are impatient to see returns on GenAI investments, yet organizations are struggling to prove and realize value. As the scope of initiatives widens, the financial burden of developing and deploying GenAI models is increasingly felt.”

These challenges signal a pressing need for AI strategies that are not just innovative, but operationally grounded. Speed without structure creates risk. Governed AI is the only scalable path forward.

The hidden risk: GPT outputs may look fluent but fail validation.

Public GPTs are trained on vast open-web content, including wikis, forums, and casual tutorials. As a result, they often:

• Generate metadata out of sequence based on surface-level familiarity
• Replicate non-compliant structure modeled on simplified examples
• Focus on stylistic flow over structural correctness

These issues can result in:

• Broken publishing workflows
• Compromised localization efficiency
• Regulatory audit issues
• Increased manual review cycles
• Reputational damage from public-facing errors
• Legal and financial risk due to misrepresentation of policy-aligned content

Why public AI tools can’t follow your specific enterprise rules.

“The problem isn’t that public GPTs can’t write, they can. The problem is that they don’t know how to write within your system,” says Nathan Gilmour, CTO of Writemore AI. “These models weren’t trained to follow your schema, your metadata rules, or your compliance boundaries. That means they’ll often produce content that looks right but breaks when it matters. It could be at validation, in translation, failure to publish, or during audit.”

Gilmour’s point underscores a deeper operational risk — public AI models are optimized for linguistic fluency, not structural fidelity. In structured environments like Adobe Experience Manager Guides, where rule adherence is foundational, organizations need AI systems that validate against internal schemas in real-time and operate within governed workflows — rather than generic tools trained on open web data.

Case example: Why rule fidelity matters and what happens without it.

In a controlled scenario, CCMS Kickstart prompted a GPT model to generate content using strict documentation constraints. A validating schema was supplied, and the model was explicitly instructed to follow the expected structure, element order, and metadata rules.

Despite those clear inputs, the model reverted to statistically familiar patterns drawn from public training data — patterns that looked polished but failed schema validation. If published, this content would have introduced compliance risks, broken publishing workflows, and created a costly rework cycle. Fortunately, CCMS Kickstart’s team caught the issue before deployment through structured testing and schema-based automation review.

This underscores a core reality: GPT tools optimize for fluency, not fidelity. To securely rework content to a corporate standard is why CCMS Kickstart works with enterprise teams to design, test, and operationalize AI models within governed content systems. Smart businesses ensure accuracy, compliance, and scalability from day one.

Real-world examples with measurable consequences.

Public GPT failures are not just theoretical. They have already resulted in legal, operational, and reputational consequences for major organizations. Unvalidated and unconstrained AI outputs can lead to measurable business impact, especially when structure and oversight are absent.

• Air Canada was found liable when it's chatbot misrepresented refund eligibility to a customer. The court ruled that the company was responsible for its AI’s answer.
• Levidow, Levidow & Oberman attorneys were sanctioned for submitting legal briefs generated by GPT that included fictitious case citations.
• DoNotPay agreed to a $193,000 settlement with the FTC after its AI provided inaccurate legal advice.

These cases reflect the same principle — organizations are accountable for outputs, regardless of whether they were AI-generated.

Governments are formalizing expectations.

Regulatory bodies around the world are moving quickly to define how AI must be used, tracked, and validated — especially in high-stakes industries. These initiatives emphasize that content created by AI is not exempt from oversight. Whether the output is for marketing, legal, or technical documentation — organizations remain accountable for what is produced.

• The EU AI Act, set to take effect in 2026, mandates documentation and oversight for general-purpose AI systems.
• The FDA issued guidance for AI-generated content used in pharmaceutical and regulatory submissions, emphasizing transparency and validation.

AI content must do more than appear correct. It must be provably compliant.

What enterprises need in an AI-enabled content environment.

To meet governance, brand, and operational standards, enterprise AI content systems should offer:

• Schema validation: Ensure real-time adherence to enterprise documentation structure, metadata logic, and vocabulary controls.
• Content pattern restriction: Prevent the use of informal or non-compliant phrasing patterns found in open web examples.
• Approved content sourcing: Limit model access to internal phrasing, templates, and reusable content blocks.
• Governed content flow: Integrate with tools like Adobe Experience Manager Guides to ensure modular development and approval workflows.
• Audit-ready output: Preserve traceability from schema to validation checkpoint for every asset.
• Structure-first review culture: Equip reviewers to assess schema adherence, not just tone or language quality.

Structured models must reflect internal business rules.

While some standardized content models provide a strong foundation, they do not enforce the internal business rules every organization depends on. Those include:

• Brand compliance and legal boilerplate
• Metadata accuracy and filtering logic
• Localization variants and reuse parameters

To maintain quality and consistency, organizations must define a structure that reflects how they publish, translate, and govern content across teams, channels, and markets.

As Sarah O’keefe, Founder and CEO of Scriptorium, notes, “Generative AI is promoted as a way to increase content velocity by automating content creation. Ironically, though, the AI engines will perform best if they are fed accurate, highly structured, semantically rich information.” Many organizations are now pursuing private AI models trained on curated internal content for greater control, better results, and fewer risks.

Conclusion: Enterprise AI should reinforce, not replace, structure.

Public GPT tools provide speed and linguistic fluency. But without rule enforcement, they risk producing outputs that are structurally invalid and operationally unsound.

Enterprises that use tools like Adobe Experience Manager Guides or comparable structured authoring environments can accelerate content velocity — provided the AI operates within a governed, schema-aligned framework.

Fluency matters. But alignment with organizational rules, validation, and traceability matter more. The enterprises that avoid the pitfalls Gartner warns about — poor data, unchecked risk, rising costs — will be the ones that build governance into their AI from the start. Structured content environments like Adobe Experience Manager Guides can help make that a reality.

Want to learn more about the AI initiatives in Adobe Experience Manager Guides? Drop us a note at techcomm@adobe.com.

Saibal Bhattacharjee is the director of product marketing for the Digital Advertising, Learning & Publishing Business Unit at Adobe. Saibal has been with Adobe for 15 years, and is currently in charge of global GTM and business strategy for a diverse product portfolio in Adobe — ranging from market-leading cloud-native component content management system (Adobe Experience Manager Guides), advertising & subscription monetization products for connected multiscreen TV platforms (Adobe Pass), to content authoring and publishing desktop apps (Adobe FrameMaker, Adobe RoboHelp).

With more than 21 years of experience in the technology sector, Saibal is a high impact marketing, strategy, and product executive with a passion for tackling the most complex challenges in enterprise software and turning solutions into scalable works of enterprise-grade art. He has successfully built, mentored, and managed global GTM teams spanning India, US, UK, Germany, and Japan for more than a decade. Saibal holds a B.E. degree from Jadavpur University, Kolkata, and an M.B.A. degree from the Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi.

https://business.adobe.com/fragments/resources/cards/thank-you-collections/experience-manager-guides