Research · Published:
Assistant Research QA and Editorial Review
A two-pass review catches missing evidence and unclear writing while keeping editorial judgment with the accountable owner.
Headline signal: 2 passes: factual QA and editorial review (Google Search Central: SEO starter guide).
Methodology: factual QA and editorial review answer different questions. The first checks whether the article is supported and complete; the second checks whether the reader can use it without being misled.
Factual QA checks slugs, titles, dates, links, source counts, headline statistics, calculations, internal links, schema fields, and required sections. Record pass or return with a reason.
Editorial review checks audience fit, clear definitions, useful tables, restrained claims, visible limitations, and whether the recommendation follows from the evidence. Avoid adding certainty that the sources do not support.
Use exactly three related research links that are genuinely adjacent, not arbitrary navigation. Keep Blog and Research inventories separate so family counts remain meaningful.
After review, rerun the checks on the final rendered content. A late edit can break a link, number, heading, or structured-data field even when the earlier draft passed.
Sources
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
- NIST Digital Identity Guidelines
- CISA Secure Our World
- FTC Data Security Guidance
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful content
- Google Search Central: SEO starter guide
- OWASP Top 10
- ILO: Decent work and the care economy
- World Bank: Digital economy
- Philippine Statistics Authority
- W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Frequently asked questions
What should a manager verify first?
Verify the work definition, source record, reviewer, access limit, and escalation path before assigning the queue.
What belongs with the internal owner?
Keep final approvals, unusual exceptions, payment decisions, and changes to the control rules with the internal owner.