The short answer
Teams get a lightweight record that links every material change to an owner, reason, evaluation, approval, rollout, and rollback point.
The decision standard is simple: preserve the source, state the limits, and make the next human check obvious. A useful article should reduce uncertainty without pretending that every unknown has been resolved.
What to examine
A workflow can change when the model, prompt, retrieval source, tool permission, policy, price, or human checkpoint changes—even if the application name does not.
Start with scope. Identify the product, account, audience, jurisdiction, data, and decision involved. Then separate what was directly observed from what a vendor, researcher, regulator, or commentator says. Record dates because AI products, access rules, and prices change quickly.
Unlogged changes make incidents harder to diagnose and can invalidate earlier tests. Avoid silent prompt and connector edits in production.
A practical way to do it
- Record the exact component, old state, new state, date, owner, and reason.
- Attach evaluation results and known limitations.
- Define rollout scope, monitoring signals, rollback criteria, and the next review date.
Keep the worksheet or test record with the draft. If another editor cannot reproduce the check from the saved evidence, the article is not ready.
Editorial guardrail
Do not fill a missing fact with a plausible sentence. Mark it as unknown, find a stronger source, narrow the claim, or remove it. Commentary belongs in a clearly labeled paragraph after the reported facts, not inside them.
Primary-source reading list
These are starting points, not automatic support for every sentence. The publishing editor must open each cited page and confirm the claim it supports on the day of review.
Bottom line
Teams get a lightweight record that links every material change to an owner, reason, evaluation, approval, rollout, and rollback point.