Content Operations
Part of B2B social content operations
Reviewing technical claims before posting
Find technical and performance claims, route them to the right owners and approve the exact wording and limits before a B2B social post goes live.
Review the exact claim a reader will see, including its scope and implied promise. Ask a subject owner to check how a method or system works. Ask an authorised offer owner to confirm what is currently available. Approve wording only when its basis and necessary limits survive into the final post.
Reviewing Technical Claims Before Posting
- Identify the exact claim in contextInclude captions, charts, attachments; consider implied promises
- Route each claim to the right ownerUse appropriate review paths based on claim type
- Make a decision on wordingApprove, qualify, rewrite, or hold based on evidence
- Check the final versionVerify alignment with approved wording before release
Mark the claims in context
Identify statements a reader might rely on: how a feature works, whether a service is available, how quickly something happens, how one approach compares with another, or what result was achieved. Include captions, charts and attachments. A question, example or testimonial can imply a claim even without a number.
Write down what each sentence actually asserts. 'Our process eliminates approval delays' asserts a broad outcome. 'Our process records who owns an exception' asserts a narrower capability. The narrower sentence still needs confirmation, but its basis is easier to identify.
A quote does not make an unsupported outcome safe to repeat.
Route each claim to the right owner
| Claim | Check to request |
|---|---|
| Method or system behaviour | Current specification or an explanation from a qualified technical owner. |
| Availability, dates or commitments | Current terms and affected customer group from an authorised offer owner. |
| Measured performance | Definition, period, population, method and permission to use the result. |
| Comparison | A fair, like-for-like basis and the conditions that affect it. |
| Customer example | Approval to disclose it and a check for identifying details. |
These are review routes, not prescribed job titles. Confidence in a method does not establish a measured outcome. A valid technical specification does not establish that every customer can obtain a feature on the same terms.
Claim Types and Their Review Requirements
- Method or system behaviour
- Current specification or explanation from a qualified technical owner
- Availability, dates or commitments
- Current terms and affected customer group from an authorised offer owner
- Measured performance
- Definition, period, population, method and permission to use the result
- Comparison
- Fair, like-for-like basis and conditions affecting it
- Customer example
- Approval to disclose and check for identifying details
Make a decision on the wording
Give reviewers the sentence in its surrounding post and attachment. Record whether the wording is approved, needs a qualification, must be rewritten to fit narrower evidence, or must be held while a material fact remains unresolved. Keep the reviewer, basis, decision date and exact approved wording together.
A distant caveat may therefore fail to repair an overbroad headline. A disputed or high-stakes claim may need specialist advice; this editorial review does not determine legal compliance.
Suppose a hypothetical post says, 'Every request is approved within a day.' If the evidence covers only one category entering review within a day, the original sentence should be held. A revision would need to state the category and distinguish entry into review from completed approval. If the timing cannot be verified, omit it.
Check the final version
Compare the approved wording with the post and attachments ready for release. Changing 'may' to 'will', adding a figure or removing an exception needs another decision. If a material claim later proves wrong, review the affected live post.
