A concerning trend has emerged where research reports are being drafted before field inspections even commence, with some now employing AI to produce thousands of words instantly. This "prefabricated" approach bypasses proper planning, skips genuine engagement during visits, and abandons thorough analysis afterward, relying merely on a few keywords for immediate output.

Since conclusions require genuine investigation, these AI-crafted documents offer little substance, appearing comprehensive but delivering nothing but empty rhetoric and inconsistencies. While AI tools promise efficiency, their use has regrettably transformed them into instruments of formalism, yet the underlying frustrations for grassroots workers remain largely unaddressed.

The core complaints center on excessive demands for materials and reports, often with unreasonable deadlines. In some regions, cadres receive up to twenty research assignments monthly, yet their regular duties leave insufficient time for proper field work, forcing them to recycle existing documents or delegate entire tasks to AI systems.

Beyond generation, the sheer volume of submissions raises questions about whether higher authorities can meaningfully process them. Quality research should flow from ground-level observations through proper channels, yielding feedback and solutions, but the emphasis often lies on submission rather than application, creating impressions that voices go unheard.

These "prefab reports" and "AI stand-ins" represent old problems in new packaging. Despite longstanding criticism of excessive paperwork and unnecessary form-filling, the pattern of prioritizing appearances over results has proven persistent, with manufactured scene-setting and AI-generated content both stemming from deeply rooted formalistic tendencies.

Combating this material-driven cycle requires recalibrating toward genuine results. Research assignments should emphasize quality over quantity, with authorities consolidating similar requests and avoiding impulsive ad-hoc demands while providing adequate time and space for meaningful inquiry.

Strengthening feedback channels is equally vital, ensuring that every submission receives acknowledgment and practical guidance, which would both encourage grassroots participation and reinforce accountability. A clear shift toward valuing demonstrable outcomes, visible problems, and tangible results rather than report length or stylistic flair will compress room for formalistic behavior.

Historical examples demonstrate the value of direct engagement, as when officials conducted personal village visits to understand rural challenges firsthand. This approach underscores that compelling reports emerge not from polished writing but from genuine presence and lived experience.

While technology enables instant composition, it cannot substitute for authentic engagement on the ground. Resolute opposition to formalism, combined with clarity about the purpose and application of these reports, enables more responsive governance that connects with communities and delivers meaningful results.