How to use the Entity Coverage Checker.
Cover relevant concepts because they help the reader complete a task. Do not add an entity merely to increase a keyword count.
Make the workflow fit your task.
Extract the concepts required to complete the reader's task and compare them with the draft. Explain why each missing concept matters, placing additions where they resolve a real gap in the workflow.
- What you provide
- Draft and supplied topic reference material.
- What you get
- Missing relevant concepts and unsupported entity mentions.
See the input and the result.
Illustrative input and output · a teaching example, not a live WebAct run
Example input
Draft explains invoices but omits currency and due-date handling required by the supplied brief.
Completed example
Coverage findings: Currency — missing. Explain the currency used for amounts and how any conversion is handled. Due-date handling — missing. Explain the agreed payment deadline and any necessary date convention. These are requirements from the supplied brief, not a recommendation to add unrelated terms for keyword coverage.
Load this input into the prompt, then copy it to WebAct to try the task. Your result may differ from the illustration.
Decisions and troubleshooting.
Should every related entity be mentioned in the article?
Include concepts that help the reader understand or complete the task. Relatedness alone does not justify additional terminology.
Why does adding more entities make the article less useful?
Remove terms that introduce no decision, explanation or example. Coverage should strengthen the answer instead of creating a list of names.
Try it with your own source.
Replace the example with your material in the task prompt. Keep the requirements you need, then copy the task into WebAct.
Customize and copy the task ↑