Editorial workflow

Objective

Attorney review and source checking precede publication. The controlled asset is the editorial queue. Completion means the firm can inspect the work, reproduce the check and continue without depending on an unexportable vendor view.

When to use this procedure

Run this SOP when draft ownership and review authority needs a new baseline, a correction or a scheduled review. Do not begin because a dashboard has issued a generic warning. Write the decision the procedure is meant to support. That keeps the work bounded and gives the quality gate a real pass condition.

Assign one operator and one approver for the editorial queue. The same person may fill both roles for a small firm, but the worksheet should still separate the act from the approval. Attorney review is required whenever published text could state law, characterize a charge, describe a defense or expose a client fact.

Inputs

Procedure

1. Open the control record

   Create the editorial queue under firm ownership. Write the market, practice scope, responsible person and review date before changing anything.

2. Capture the starting state

   Inspect draft ownership and review authority. Save the raw export or source copy and note any field that cannot be observed.

3. Set the acceptance rule

   Define what counts as complete, which value must remain fixed, and who can approve an exception. Put the rule in the worksheet.

4. Perform the work

   Move copy through factual and attorney review. Make one traceable change at a time when the system allows it, then log who acted and when.

5. Test the result

   Repeat the observation with the same settings. Compare the output with the acceptance rule and retain versioned approvals.

6. Close or recover

   If the gate passes, prepare the handoff. If it fails, restore the last known state where possible and open a blocker record.

Asset-specific record

For Editorial workflow, the first inspection is draft ownership and review authority. Save that state before acting and name the person who can confirm it. The working action is to move copy through factual and attorney review. Put that sentence in the task record so a later operator can distinguish the intended change from incidental edits made during the same session.

The proof file is versioned approvals. Give it the procedure number and observation date, then store it with the source material used for the decision. If the platform has no export, capture the complete visible settings and account context. A screenshot can show a state; it cannot replace an available raw file used for a calculation.

Asset closeout

The deliverable is publication package. Review it against the starting state and acceptance rule before transfer. The firm should receive an editable or exportable copy under its control, along with the next review date. Record any dependency that remains open and the person responsible for resolving it.

Stop the closeout when required counsel review is absent. Preserve the failed state and write the expected result beside the actual one. If a repair changes the observation method, close the old version as inconclusive and open a dated procedure. That keeps the original baseline intelligible.

Quality gate for Editorial workflow

Approve the editorial queue only when a second operator can reproduce draft ownership and review authority and reach the same disposition. The reviewer must locate versioned approvals, identify who approved it and state the limit that travels with the result. Return the Editorial workflow file if a conclusion depends on an unrecorded setting or a vendor-only screen.

Scenario test for Editorial workflow

Run a dry test on the editorial queue before declaring this procedure ready. Begin with draft ownership and review authority and give the test file to someone who did not perform the setup. That reviewer should be able to locate the starting record, identify its date and explain which field the procedure may change. If those answers depend on a verbal explanation from the operator, the Editorial workflow package is not ready for repeat use.

Next, ask the reviewer to follow this working instruction: move copy through factual and attorney review. Compare the resulting observation with versioned approvals. A useful comparison names the unchanged settings as well as the changed field. It also records an absent value as absent; it does not fill a blank from memory or copy a later value back into the baseline. File the review beside the editorial queue so the test travels with the work.

Acceptance example

A passing Editorial workflow file produces publication package that another firm-authorized operator can open and continue. The package identifies the approval rule, links to versioned approvals and gives the next review a calendar date. The receiving operator can tell which source controls the fact and which worksheet contains the observation. No private case detail is needed to understand the result.

A failed example begins when required counsel review is absent. Leave that state visible in the editorial queue record. Assign the repair to the person who controls the source, then repeat draft ownership and review authority under the recorded settings. Do not replace the failed copy with the repaired one. The two files show what changed, and they let the approver decide whether the original acceptance rule still fits the Editorial workflow procedure.