The headline for an MSN article has been approved, but a final reporting update changes the story's central claim. The draft, headline, and promotional summary now need to be considered together before the package can mo
The headline for an MSN article has been approved, but a final reporting update changes the story's central claim. The draft, headline, and promotional summary now need to be considered together before the package can move forward.
Xander can work alongside the editorial team as a coworker in FridayHQ. The publication's project knowledge provides the basis for reviewing the assignment, interpreting decisions, coordinating follow-up work, and maintaining each content item's tags and state.
For MSN production, build that foundation around the evidence behind the story and the responsibilities behind its approval.
Keep the audience, house style, attribution standards, approved examples, and review process in the project KnowledgeBase. Separate durable editorial guidance from the source material and facts for a particular assignment.
For a feature about a historic cinema reopening, the assignment should distinguish confirmed dates, statements supplied by the venue, and the writer's own observations. Xander can use those distinctions when examining whether the draft or headline goes beyond the material provided.
Identify what Xander may assess and which decisions require a named editor. A practical starting rule is that Xander can flag unsupported claims and propose wording, while the responsible editor confirms the evidence and final sign-off. Define what should happen to the relevant tags and state when new reporting changes the package.
MSN's publishing guidelines require named sources for facts, quotations, and opinions, and headlines that accurately represent the connected content. Keep those requirements visible in the publication's review brief.
Start with the subject, intended angle, available sources, and missing information:
Xander, review this cinema assignment against our editorial guidance. Suggest a structure, identify the questions the reporting still needs to answer, and distinguish confirmed information from claims that need checking.
Agree on the assignment and ask Xander to create the reporting, draft, fact-review, and media-preparation tasks with the selected owners and deadlines. Xander can send the briefs to those contributors.
Keep the draft, proposed headline, source notes, and selected media together in the content context. The team can then discuss a particular claim or presentation choice with the evidence available to consult.
Use a small set of tags with precise meanings:
| Suggested tag | When Xander records it | What requires another check |
|---|---|---|
| Sources Verified | The assigned editor or fact-checker confirms the claims against the evidence. | New claims, changed figures, or revised source material. |
| Headline Approved | The editor approves the current wording against the story. | A changed headline or a reporting update affecting its meaning. |
| Media Credits Checked | The responsible person confirms the selected media's credit and usage information. | Replacement media or changed attribution. |
| Editorial Sign-off | The designated editor approves the current package. | A substantive revision under the publication's review rules. |
Connect these checkpoints to the configured review and readiness states. Xander can maintain the tags and update the content state when you report an editorial decision or ask for a check against the project rules.
The record should preserve which version received the decision. A general statement that a story was approved is not enough to establish that a later headline or revised claim has been reviewed.
Suppose a source corrects the reopening date and clarifies that only part of the cinema will open initially. Bring the corrected source information to Xander:
Compare this source update with the current draft, headline, and summary. Reopen the affected source and headline checks and editorial sign-off, update the content state for review, and assign the corrections to the editor. Send the source update with the task.
Xander can coordinate the revision and maintain the affected tags and state. The editor checks the evidence and agrees on the resulting wording before the package receives its next sign-off.
For unresolved questions, ask Xander to identify the missing evidence and the person responsible for obtaining it. Keep a clear distinction between a proposed revision and a confirmed editorial decision.
Before release, ask Xander to summarize the current version, completed checks, unresolved questions, and next owners. Confirm the publishing package, media, metadata, destination, timing, and person responsible for release or later corrections. Contact FridayHQ support to discuss eligibility for limited partner direct-publishing access and your required publishing route.
After publication, provide release confirmation before asking Xander to update the record. If the publication later issues a correction, keep the new decision connected to the relevant version and have Xander coordinate its follow-up work.
Begin with one assignment and a clear set of editorial rules. The team can continue the conversation with Xander while the tags, tasks, and content state reflect what has actually been established.
