The short answer
Small teams get a one-page response structure with detection, containment, evidence preservation, impact assessment, notification, correction, and lessons learned.
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 practical plan covers data exposure, harmful or false output, unauthorized action, customer impact, vendor outage, and loss of access. It names who can stop the workflow and who must be told.
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.
Do not delete logs or improvise public claims during an incident. Legal, insurer, customer, or regulator notification duties may apply.
A practical way to do it
- Name an incident lead and a backup.
- Document how to disable access, keys, automations, and publication.
- Keep a contact list, decision log, and post-incident 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
Small teams get a one-page response structure with detection, containment, evidence preservation, impact assessment, notification, correction, and lessons learned.