Keep the claim and its source together.
Start with the exact sentence that may be published. Add the original source link and the passage it relies on. Record missing dates, definitions, or context before the claim moves to another reviewer.
Assign the next check.
Name the unresolved question and who will investigate it. “Check this statistic against the original release” gives a reviewer a clearer task than “verify the paragraph.”
Separate evidence from a decision.
Record what supports or contradicts the statement, then make the publication decision. An unavailable source should remain an unavailable source, even under time pressure.
Review proposed wording.
Compare a correction with the original sentence and its evidence. Watch for changes to scope or meaning. Keep the reviewer’s decision with the revised wording.
Prepare the handoff.
Include the final claim, cited passages, open questions, and any required standards or legal review. Confirm that an exported report contains the material the next person needs.
Measure the pilot before expanding it.
Agree on a baseline for review time, unresolved claims, and correction work. Track the same measures during a small pilot. Inspect the difficult cases as well as the averages.
Use those results to decide whether the process helps your team. A more structured workflow is a proposal to test, not proof of fewer errors.