Course captions mangle the terms students need to learn

The problem

Automatic transcripts can misstate names and specialist terminology, making lessons hard to search or follow.

Agent job

Find inconsistent terminology, speaker labels and timestamps; propose transcript edits with uncertainty markers and an issue list for human listening.

Expected output

Reviewed transcript draft, caption correction list and glossary; no certification of accessibility.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Assessment

The agent can notice inconsistent specialist terms across lessons and reconcile them with an approved glossary. Basic spell-check is better for simple typos; a caption editor handles timing. A knowledgeable human must listen to uncertain audio and identify essential visual context.

Setup requirements

Items

1. Rights-cleared transcript/caption files with stable episode or lesson IDs

2. Owner-approved glossary and speaker list

3. Human reviewer with access to playback and a caption editor

4. Agreed scope: existing transcripts, language, duration and whether visual descriptions are included

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Creator-owned captions and transcripts

   Source or owner

   Prospective consenting customer or specified official publisher

   Sensitivity

   Use synthetic, public or appropriately deidentified material; confirm actual sensitivity before work

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes scoped access and processing; verify rights and retention before receiving files

2. Name

   Approved terminology glossary

   Source or owner

   Prospective consenting customer or specified official publisher

   Sensitivity

   Use synthetic, public or appropriately deidentified material; confirm actual sensitivity before work

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes scoped access and processing; verify rights and retention before receiving files

3. Name

   Creator-supplied audio/video excerpts for human checking

   Source or owner

   Prospective consenting customer or specified official publisher

   Sensitivity

   Use synthetic, public or appropriately deidentified material; confirm actual sensitivity before work

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes scoped access and processing; verify rights and retention before receiving files

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Inventory lesson IDs, caption formats, duration and rights; agree which files are in scope.

   Expected output: Lesson manifest

   Approval gate: Stop if the creator cannot authorize processing or if sensitive student material appears.

2. 2

   Build an approved terminology table and preserve original speaker names and timecodes.

   Expected output: Glossary with approved spellings

   Approval gate: Do not infer a person’s identity from audio or images.

3. 3

   Compare recurring terms across the supplied transcripts and flag likely substitutions or missing speaker labels.

   Expected output: Timestamped candidate-issue ledger

   Approval gate: All uncertain edits remain suggestions.

4. 4

   Have the human listen to each flagged passage and inspect the sample lesson’s visual context.

   Expected output: Verified corrections and unresolved passages

   Approval gate: Human subject expert decides factual wording; no invented visual description.

5. 5

   Produce a revised transcript copy and caption-edit instructions; check timestamp order and line alignment.

   Expected output: Revision diff and timing checklist

   Approval gate: A text-only check cannot certify synchronization or accessibility.

6. 6

   Review the agreed sample and package glossary, changes and remaining issues for the creator.

   Expected output: Acceptance checklist and editable files

   Approval gate: Creator approves final captions before any upload or publication.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Synthetic

Yes

Executed

No

Text

SYNTHETIC: Lesson 02, 00:03:14: “cache invalidation” is rendered “cash validation.” Proposed correction: cache invalidation. Evidence: glossary item G07; AUDIO CHECK REQUIRED. Visual-only diagram at 00:04:02 needs a human description. No lesson was reviewed to produce this example.

Human approval boundaries

1. Rights holder approves access and revisions; specialist signs off terminology and final captions before upload.

2. Human service provider reviews quality, scope and quoted fee; customer approves contract, delivery recipients and payment terms. Separately approve purchases, credentials, publication and external sends. No commitments or payments are made in this research.

Failure modes

1. Specialist vocabulary may be corrected incorrectly

2. Text-only review misses timing and important visuals

3. Existing captions can be incomplete

Recovery and troubleshooting

Items

1. If the glossary conflicts with audible speech, retain the original and escalate to the course author.

2. If timecodes have shifted, stop bulk edits and re-align in the caption editor before rechecking.

3. If error density is high, re-scope to full human transcript review rather than selling a light QA pass.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Use a creator-approved 10-minute lesson, existing captions and 12 deliberately seeded terminology/timing problems.

Acceptance checks

1. Human listens to full sample

2. All factual word changes trace to glossary or audio

3. Timing failures listed for manual repair

4. Uncertain words remain flagged

Stop conditions

1. Stop if data authority or rights are unclear.

2. Stop if critical seeded failures are missed; do not claim readiness.

3. Stop if manual correction time exceeds the pilot effort budget without customer approval.

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

CAD

Items

1. Agent subscription/API usage: not quoted; verify current plan and commercial data terms.

2. Human intake, rights review, QA and revisions: unknown until timed pilot.

3. Storage, hosting, integration and payment-processing costs: excluded unless separately agreed.

4. Customer acquisition and support time: not measured.

Caveat

No margin or income estimate. Price hypotheses are editorial offer tests, not observed market rates; taxes, scope and effort require a real quote.

Proposed service concept — earnings not verified or guaranteed

Buyer

Independent adult-course creator with an owned video archive

Deliverable

Reviewed transcript draft, caption correction list and glossary; no certification of accessibility.

Charging basis

Per-finished-hour transcript QA package, excluding fresh transcription and translations.

Acquisition channel

Permission-based discovery with existing professional contacts, referrals or an opt-in sample page; none executed.

Assumptions

1. Customer has this unresolved problem and values a reviewed deliverable above existing built-in alternatives.

2. A consenting pilot confirms data access, achievable quality and economically tolerable review time.

3. Provider can deliver within a written scope and supports the result.

Revenue guarantee

No

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Proposed Canadian pilot: use the creator’s approved English or French terminology and Canadian names/place spellings; test accented characters and code-switching in a small lesson sample. Obtain a competent reviewer for each language rather than assuming translation quality. No accessibility certification or tested Canadian deployment.

Limits

1. Original proposed plan; untested.

2. Problem and capability references are evidence of context only, not demonstrated end-to-end success, customer demand, willingness to pay or profitability.

3. Compatibility, workload, delivery effort and availability must be verified in a real authorized pilot.

4. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Claude (Cowork capabilities)

   Required capabilities

   1. Read supplied files and produce editable documents and spreadsheets.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-get-started-with-claude-cowork

   2. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Claude Cowork

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.