Publication review

How to apply this skill

1. Bind the review to the immutable draft revision or content hash. Read the headline, deck, body, captions, graphics, verdict, and summaries. Verify that they express the same bounded account and cutoff.
2. Independently inspect evidence for material claims, quotations, consequential numbers, serious allegations, and decisive narrative details. Use original passages rather than trusting the draft's summary of them. Confirm citation targets exist and support their attached text.
3. Reconcile the strongest contrary evidence, source independence, access gaps, and analytical limitations. Check that serious uncertainty is visible in the prose and that the conclusion does not exceed the verified record.
4. Review narrative integrity and moderation outcomes. Confirm that no unsupported factual detail entered during polishing, no allegation became guilt by implication, and no excluded content or unresolved rights issue remains.
5. Complete the production-quality review of the rendered Story and Sources & evidence tabs, visual assets, phone/desktop layout, meaningful controls and social preview. Independently compare the complete reading experience with an inspected reference treatment. For a full article, inspect the substantial opening image and distributed in-story sequence, their distinct explanatory jobs, and the narrative’s opening, development, countercase and bounded ending. Image counts, tables, source panels and a social card cannot stand in for this assessment. Inspect any scope exception against the actual commission or explicit user direction; a short draft or delivery problem is not evidence of a brief commission. Check reader accountability: original publication time, substantive update time if applicable, evidence cutoff, AI involvement, accountable publisher, methodology access, and correction route. Label analysis where interpretation could be mistaken for direct reporting. Never invent an editor, interview, or human review.
6. Return a revision-bound decision with concrete reasons. Cleared stories may publish automatically within the authorized workflow. Holds should name the unresolved issue and remedy, not demand approval for every article.
7. At actual release, verify the server accepted the same reviewed revision and read back its rendering for the commissioned audience. For public stories, verify anonymous reading and sharing; for personal/private stories, verify authorized reading and image access plus anonymous/other-owner denial, and record sharing as intentionally private. Confirm the right story route, title, evidence links, and relevant metadata. Distinguish accepted publication from deployed and rendered visibility.

What this produces

Return publicationReview with revision/hash and final asset checksums, reviewer identity or process, checks performed, evidence inspected, inspected benchmark and treatment assessment, narrative and visual findings, pass/revise/hold outcome, required repairs, remaining limits, and release/readback receipt when publication occurs. State which checks were made in the actual reader and which remain unperformed. A review alone is not proof of publication.

Sources behind this skill

Accountability draws on IFCN and SPJ. AP's AI standards describe human newsroom review; an automated Follow.fyi review must not claim equivalence. Revision controls are Follow.fyi's design.