And if you can't do it without Grammarly, maybe you shouldn't have that job.
It's the classic case of removing all of the apparent errors which then results in the downstream system underestimating the actual quantity of errors in the source and thus not being vigilant for more critical errors. Sure, it makes people look better to their colleagues, but what happens when they need to communicate in person, or in cases like mistaken context for double negative? The receiver will be so impressed with the level of communication they receive that they won't expect basic errors might be made.
> An algorithm is isn't going to be able to clear up miscommunication more accurately than the person who receives the message.
The whole point isn’t accuracy. Grammarly improves the clarity and accuracy of the message so another person doesn’t have to. The recipient can focus on the message, not applying their superior ability to clear up miscommunications.
So, I tend to agree with you. Whether or not this person has tested Grammarly is somewhat irrelevant because they clearly don’t understand why it exists.
My guess is -- the improvement one might get from using Grammarly might be equivalent to "a faster version of, let me read a BUNCH of examples of similar writings to spark an idea of a better way to say a thing?"
In other words, it feels like the thing that Grammarly might be useful for probably lean "syntactical" over "meaningful?" Something like that.
Ultimately an organizational problem but I gotta say it gets very peeving to write 5 different solutions to the same ask because the other person is careless with their words.
Tools exist to help us. Use them.