Marketing SOP: Source-checked content review

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.