# Marketing SOP: Source-checked content review Version: draft-1 / 2026-11-09. Department: Marketing. Source: [Canonical SOP](https://dive.vladyslavpodoliako.com/sops/marketing-content-review/) > Untested general-purpose draft. All procedure steps, quality checks, and acceptance tests are not run. These are proposed templates, not actual Belkins SOPs or hands-on test reports. No external actions, sends, model calls, or schedules are performed or configured. No action is preapproved. Prepare a claim register, proposed edits, and an editorial review packet without publishing or inventing evidence. ## Purpose Review a content piece for decision usefulness, factual support, and publication readiness. The output is a proposed editorial disposition for a human editor, not an automatic publish action or proof that layout QA occurred. ## Ownership and trigger - Owner: Writer or content owner. Named person: not assigned. - Approver: Managing editor. Named person: not assigned. - Proposed trigger: A versioned draft, approved brief, and source register are ready for editorial review. Missing evidence holds the affected claims. ## Approved inputs - Audience, decision being answered, proposed canonical intent, and versioned editorial brief. - Versioned draft and approved source register with dates and exact supporting passages. - Brand, privacy, image-rights, terminology, and publication constraints. - Named writer/editor, run identifier, approved review environment, and data classification. ## Proposed procedure (not run) 1. [ ] Not run: Check whether an existing owned page already answers the same decision. Recommend updating or consolidating it if the proposed page adds no distinct value; record the overlap for the editor. 2. [ ] Not run: Create a claim register with claim, source, observation date, support, and limitation. Separate vendor assertions, documented firsthand observations, and editorial inference. A source listing is not a product test. 3. [ ] Not run: Identify changeable facts, such as pricing or model availability, that need a dated primary-source recheck by an authorized reviewer. Until that evidence is supplied, hold the claim rather than fill the gap from memory. 4. [ ] Not run: Flag contradictions, missing definitions, reused research figures, and first-person assertions without actual test receipts. Mark illustrative examples as illustrative and remove fabricated results or endorsements. 5. [ ] Not run: Review the proposed direct answer, example, limitations, downloadable output, internal links, and descriptive metadata. Put browser layout checks on the unrun release checklist; reading the source does not establish responsive behavior. 6. [ ] Not run: Return a proposed edit diff and an accept, revise, or hold recommendation for the editor. Record unresolved claims. A separate authorized publisher owns any deployment, and its verification cannot be inferred from this review packet. ## Proposed outputs - Claim register and source-date notes with unsupported assertions held. - Proposed edit diff quoting the original passage and explaining each material change. - Unresolved issues and an unrun release checklist, including responsive layout and rights review. - Empty editor decision field with draft version and review scope. ## Quality checks (not run) - [ ] Not run: Every material claim is supported by supplied evidence or clearly labeled as inference. - [ ] Not run: Examples are illustrative; no fabricated result, endorsement, or hands-on test claim appears. - [ ] Not run: Rights and processing permissions for data and visual assets are documented before use. - [ ] Not run: Canonical intent, links, heading structure, and exports are included in the proposed review. - [ ] Not run: Editor approval and browser QA remain pending until separately recorded with evidence. ## Acceptance tests (not run) - [ ] Not run: Normal. Proposed fixture: Synthetic factual claim with a supporting passage and observation date. Expected result: The claim maps to the supplied source and date without expanding what the passage supports. - [ ] Not run: Missing support. Proposed fixture: An unsourced benchmark or first-person performance claim. Expected result: The claim is held; no result or citation is supplied from memory. - [ ] Not run: Contradiction. Proposed fixture: Two supplied price records with different dates and terms. Expected result: The conflict and date/term differences are flagged for a primary-source recheck, not silently resolved. - [ ] Not run: Duplicate intent. Proposed fixture: A proposed guide answering the same decision as an existing owned page. Expected result: The review recommends consolidation or a documented distinct scope. ## Stop and recovery - Hold publication when a material claim, license, source identity, or required approval is missing. - Retain the last reviewed draft and unresolved claim register. Ask the managing editor to resolve the blocking items. - Re-review changed claims and dependent charts after evidence is supplied. Publication and actual layout verification remain separate, unrun activities. ## Evidence record (empty) - Template version: draft-1 / 2026-11-09. Adapted version and run identifier: not recorded. - Run status: Not run. Fixture/source versions and approved environment: not recorded. - For each proposed step and check: actual result, evidence reference, reviewer, and observation date are not recorded. Expected results above are not observations. - Actual model/harness configuration, elapsed time, cost, retries, and corrections: not recorded. No model call is made here. - Human decision: pending. Approver identity, review date, and scope: not recorded. No response is not approval. - External execution: none performed by this template. Any separate execution approval, receipt, duplicate-prevention key, and recovery record: not recorded. - Keep any future evidence in its approved restricted location. Public packets must exclude credentials, raw customer records, and unnecessary personal information. ## Related planning reference [SOP library](https://dive.vladyslavpodoliako.com/sops/) | [Workflow planner preset](https://dive.vladyslavpodoliako.com/workflow-planner/?preset=content-review) The planner preset is an editable starting specification, not an execution of this procedure. Its fields are starting values: replace its owner, approver, trigger, and inputs with this SOP's, and reconcile the rest before use.