Publication review template

Use this after the content is complete enough to inspect. Keep approval tied to the exact result.

Conceptual illustration. It does not show the Pineapple interface or a measured result.

Artifact title, version/hash, and destination:
Owner and review date:
Reader and the task this helps them complete:
Create / update / skip, with reason:


Claim checks:


- Sources support the important claims.
- Observation, inference, ambition, and fictional example are distinguishable.
- Product steps were verified, or their limits are explicit.
- Dates, units, denominators, coverage, and maturity are stated for metrics.
- No stale plan has been promoted to current authority.


Reader checks:


- The opening states the useful point.
- Links work and the next action is clear.
- A reader can follow the example without private context.
- Mobile, keyboard, headings, and tables were inspected.


Privacy checks:


- No credentials, customer identifiers, private records, or internal access links.
- Aggregate groups and overlapping results do not expose individuals.
- Any identifiable story or quote has specific permission.


Native draft ID and readback revision:
Shared content and existing-draft conflict check:
Approval: person, exact revision, destination, action, and time.
Provider response:
Public URL and live verification:
Correction/rollback record:
Next review date:

A passed editorial check does not mean the page is published. A provider response does not mean the public page shows the intended content.

SEO and visual checks

Check a unique title and description, the intended canonical URL, useful internal links and a topic-relevant sharing image. Verify alt text and the whole saved native page at desktop and phone widths. Keep drafts non-indexable. After approved publication, check the real public page and sitemap; a saved SEO field cannot prove indexing.

Use the FAQ case to distinguish a checked draft from a published result.

Updated 19 October 2026.