This is our term for an editorial decision point, not a requirement imposed by a search engine. The assigned editor must identify what evidence or change is needed before a held draft can proceed. (Google guidance on generative AI content ↗)
Jump to a section
Holding a comparison until it answers the headline
Imagine a draft claiming that a higher ad-price floor improves revenue, while its comparison excludes unfilled opportunities. The editor holds the draft until the writer supplies a comparison across the same eligible opportunities. The recorded condition gives the writer a concrete repair rather than a vague request to “improve quality.”
A workflow state is not proof of truth
Record the decision against the actual article version. If the conclusion or evidence changes afterward, the earlier approval cannot establish that the new version was reviewed. Passing a format check is not a substitute for that judgment.
Make the release decision explicit
Ask the reviewer to identify the exact version and the evidence for its most consequential claim. If a later edit changes that claim, return it to review. This keeps an approval for an earlier draft from silently carrying over to a different article.