Core guide / PULSE

A source-to-publication workflow for AI-assisted content

Turn a source packet into a reviewed article and visual without losing evidence, ownership or the approval decision.

Source review: 2026-11-07. Prepared with AI assistance; references checked against official documentation. Editorial method and limits.

Download a blank evaluation worksheet (CSV). The example row is fictional and has not been run.

Download a worked claim-review example — fictional brief, flawed draft, evidence decisions and corrected copy.

Create the source packet

Assign a brief ID and record the audience question, original URLs, access date, source dates and uncertainty. Keep source observations separate from your interpretation. A product announcement supports what a vendor announced; it does not establish independent performance.

For a fictional launch brief, use fields for claim, supporting passage, limitation and reviewer. If a claim cannot be supported, remove it or label it as a question to investigate.

Draft within the evidence boundary

Give the drafting tool the packet and ask it to identify missing evidence before writing. Request a short answer to the audience question, followed by reasoning and references. Never let a polished paragraph substitute for opening the source.

Suggested instruction: “Use only this packet for factual product claims. Mark unsupported claims as unresolved. Separate vendor statements from our interpretation.” This is a proposed prompt, not a benchmarked one.

Run two different reviews

First review facts: names, dates, numbers, source support and disclosure. Then review usefulness: does the reader know what to do and when the advice does not apply? Assign a responsible human for the final decision.

Do not approve a visual independently of its caption. A correct article can become misleading when a chart label drops a qualifier or a graphic crops out the date.

Make the handoff explicit

Use a record with brief ID, revision, reviewer, decision and approved artifact URL. If using automation, require approval for the exact revision being sent onward. Changing a draft after approval should create a new review decision.

Start with a draft-only destination. Test declined approval, missing source and duplicate input before allowing a publishing action. The linked Zapier guide describes its approval feature; the proposed record design here is tool-independent.

Publish and maintain

Link to the original references and state how the article was produced. Date substantive reviews accurately. A new timestamp without a content check does not make an old claim fresh.

Create an update queue for source changes, broken references and reader corrections. Prioritize changes that could alter a reader’s decision. Preserve an explanation when a material recommendation changes.

Official references

References support documented product capabilities. Procedures, examples and acceptance criteria above are editorial proposals, not vendor promises or hands-on benchmarks.