Review the claim and the destination
A social post can be accurate in its wording and still send readers to the wrong page. It can also expose a customer name or account detail hidden in a screenshot. Review the complete post, including the image and the link destination.
Give the reviewer a source for each factual claim and permission for any customer material. Keep publishing rights separate from routine drafting where the platform supports it. Agree who can stop distribution, correct the post, and respond if private information is released.
Put it into practice
Select a campaign draft and verify its claims, image rights, customer references, links, and audience. Use separate drafting and publishing permissions. Rehearse withdrawing a mistaken post and informing the people affected without exposing more data.
Implementation steps
- Assemble the complete draft Include the final wording, destination links, images, audience, and planned release channel. Inspect screenshots for customer identifiers and account details.
- Verify claims and permissions Give the reviewer a source for each material claim and a permission record for customer references or licensed assets. Resolve unsupported wording before approval.
- Approve and rehearse correction Confirm publishing authority and the person who can withdraw or correct the post. Test that route on a draft, including the record of the change.
Track claim traceability and asset permission
| Measure | Calculation or definition | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Claim traceability | Material factual claims with checked sources / material claims reviewed | Resolve unsupported wording before publication. |
| Asset permission | Assets with a documented right to use / assets planned for release | Include screenshots, customer references, and licensed images. |
| Correction rehearsal | Time from an approved correction request to verified change | Test the platform permissions and final destination. |
Check each draft through to approval
Worked example. Figures are illustrative.
Illustrative review: a campaign contains 12 drafts. Sources have been checked for 10, asset permissions for 8, and final approval for 6. These checks overlap; they are not separate groups to add together. Review each draft against all release requirements before concluding that it is ready to publish.
The record to keep
The deliverable: A social-content review checklist with claim sources, asset rights, publishing approval, and correction steps.
Before the next campaign, rehearse a correction using a draft. Confirm that the responsible person can find the asset, change the destination, and document what was corrected.
References
- NIST TN 2276: Phish Scale User Guide — Interpret exercise results in the context of lure detection difficulty rather than comparing raw click rates alone.
- NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3: Incident Response — Connect preparation, detection, response, and recovery with the wider risk-management program.
Keep reading.
Your Access List Is a Museum. Time to Clean It Out.
An access review needs more than a list of active employees. Supplier accounts, service identities, inherited permissions, and active sessions can preserve access after the original reason has ended.
3 min read →
October 30 market close: Intel plunges, Nasdaq falls 2.86%
Intel falls 28.58% as its outlook weighs on technology. Nasdaq loses 2.86%, energy leads sector gains, and labor-cost data and weekly returns frame the Friday close.
4 min read →
October 29 market close: Alphabet sinks, small caps advance
Alphabet falls 12.64% and the Nasdaq loses 1.38%, while small caps and nine sector ETFs gain. GDP, inflation and Amazon earnings frame a sharply divided session.
4 min read →