Approval works when each reviewer checks a defined risk. A small matrix prevents duplicate review while keeping the final publishing decision accountable.
Assign review types
The writer checks completeness and reader usefulness. The SEO reviewer checks intent, metadata, links, and route uniqueness. The business owner checks service accuracy and the next action. Add specialist review only when the subject requires it.
Define the stop conditions
Each reviewer should know what blocks publication: unsupported claims, duplicate routes, broken links, missing sections, or an unclear audience. Optional polish should be recorded separately so it does not obscure a real blocker.
Record evidence
Use the article quality scorecard and attach the final brief, source notes, and validation output. The approver records the decision and any deferred follow-up.
Keep ownership clear
The publishing owner makes the final release decision after required checks pass. A matrix is useful when it makes accountability obvious and lets the daily routine move without informal approval chains. +## Match checks to risk
The writer checks completeness, the subject owner checks accuracy, and the SEO reviewer checks route uniqueness and links. This avoids general comments with no accountable decision. Claims affecting customer expectations go to the business owner.
Use a decision record
Capture version, checks, blockers, accepted risks, approver, and review date. A rejection should cite a failed criterion. Repeated defects belong in the checklist so the matrix reduces review time.
