01
State what will be published
State the format, version and publication objective. A public page, letter and internal note have different contexts of use.
Give each format a name and version: email V2, page V3, partner sheet V1. State the target date and intended reader action. A folder called “final campaign” containing several unidentified files leaves too much room for interpretation at distribution time.
02
State who checks and who decides
Identify who checks facts, who approves content and who decides on distribution. Agreement in principle on a campaign does not approve all its formats.
Separate factual review, editorial coherence and permission to distribute. In a small team, one person may hold several responsibilities; make that overlap explicit. Set a deadline and define what happens if someone does not respond. Silence should not become approval by default.
03
Check the distribution context
Record the intended date, practical information and disclosures to check. For a political or electoral campaign, have the nature of the message and the rules applying to the election reviewed before publication.
A correction can change the meaning. If the venue, price or a condition changes, identify the affected formats and approvals to revisit. A typographical correction can follow a lighter process if the team has defined its limits. Avoid reopening every decision without identifying what actually changed.
04
Prepare what follows
Keep a copy of the transmitted version, correction reasons and information needed for reporting. Do not confuse an export with confirmed sending.
Distinguish the states: draft, under review, changes requested, approved for a specific version, then handed over. Keep the decision, date and qualifications. Reporting should use confirmations from the distribution tool and observed results, without treating an export click as proof of sending.
Points to check
- Every format has an identifiable version.
- Checking and distribution responsibilities are explicit.
- Blocking issues are separate from suggestions.
- A source change triggers a review of affected formats.
- The transmitted version and corresponding decision are retained.
Your working template
Download this outline and adapt it to your dossier. Complete the fields in your own tools.
No sign-up. Plain text, ready to open in your word processor.
Read the template on this page
APPROVAL RECORD Campaign and objective: Format and version: Reference documents: Proposed publication date: Fact check, responsible person and date: Editorial review, responsible person and date: Blocking issues: Distribution decision and responsible person: Qualifications: Changes requiring fresh approval: Version finally handed over:
Common questions
How many approvals should a campaign need?
The number depends on responsibilities and the risks in the content. Start by covering the necessary checks. Adding steps that all examine the same thing may slow the campaign without clarifying who decides.
Can approval be reused after a correction?
Examine the correction and the scope of the approval. A new date, changed promise or removed condition may require a fresh decision. The dossier should show what changed and which formats are affected.
A readable dossier does not decide for the team. It lets the team decide with the relevant context.
All resources