Nope, you got that wrong. He reported the workflow (possibly extended on it in a comment) as he generates a draft, others check that for bugs, he generates a final version ostensibly based on that bug-checking. Intentional errors are introduced only into the draft, not the final version, so even if his colleagues miss any of them, they aren't in the final result.
So nothing _has_ "to be checked for and repaired"; as others have commented, he's just doing his part to help these colleagues have something to do, too.
So nothing _has_ "to be checked for and repaired"; as others have commented, he's just doing his part to help these colleagues have something to do, too.