Automate Editorial Fact-Checking and Style Compliance
An editor reviewing a freelancer's draft has to hold two separate checklists in their head at once — is every factual claim in this piece actually verifiable, and does the writing follow the twenty-plus rules in the style guide nobody's fully memorized, from Oxford comma preference to how the company name gets capitalized to which terms are on the banned-jargon list. Under deadline pressure, style compliance gets checked more thoroughly than factual claims, or vice versa, and either a stat gets published without a source the editor meant to verify, or a style inconsistency slips through that makes the brand's voice look inconsistent post to post.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 20-40 min per article in editorial review time.
How the automation works
We run drafts through a structured check before editorial review — flagging factual claims (statistics, dates, named studies, quoted figures) that need a source citation or verification, and separately checking the draft against the maintained style guide for voice, terminology, formatting and banned-term violations. Flagged factual claims are marked with what specifically needs verification rather than a blanket 'fact-check this,' and style flags reference the specific rule being violated so the editor can make a fast, informed call rather than re-deriving the style guide from memory on every pass. The editor's judgment stays central — the check surfaces what needs attention, it doesn't auto-correct or auto-approve content.
Process flow
- 01
Draft submitted for editorial review trigger
A completed draft enters the review queue, triggering the automated fact-check and style-compliance pass before it reaches the editor.
- 02
Extract and flag factual claims ai
Statistics, dates, named studies, quoted figures and other verifiable claims are identified and flagged with a note on what specifically needs a source or verification.
- 03
Check against style guide ai
The draft is checked against the maintained style guide's specific rules — terminology, formatting, banned jargon, voice guidelines — with each flag referencing the specific rule violated.
- 04
Editor reviews flagged items output
The editor works from a flagged summary rather than re-deriving the checklist from memory, making informed calls on each flagged claim and style item.
- 05
Draft cleared for publish output
Once flagged items are resolved or explicitly waived by the editor, the draft is marked clean and ready for the next stage of the publishing workflow.
Inputs
- Submitted draft content
- Maintained style guide with specific rules
- Source verification requirements
- Editor decisions on flagged items
Outputs
- Flagged factual claims needing verification
- Style guide violation flags with specific rule cited
- Editor review summary
- Publish-ready cleared draft
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- Fact-check flagging that treats every number in a draft as equally uncertain buries genuinely risky claims (an unverified statistic attributed to a named study) among trivial ones (a rounded estimate clearly framed as approximate), and an editor who has to triage twenty flags of mixed severity is more likely to rubber-stamp the batch than catch the one that actually matters.
- Style guide checks that flag every deviation as a hard violation, including genuinely acceptable stylistic exceptions the guide doesn't explicitly cover, train editors to dismiss flags reflexively rather than evaluate them, which defeats the entire purpose of having automated compliance checking in the first place.
- A style guide that's gone stale relative to how the brand actually writes now — an old banned-term list that still flags language the brand has since adopted, or formatting rules from a previous CMS that no longer apply — produces flags that actively mislead editors rather than help them, so the guide itself needs maintenance, not just the checking tool.
- Automated fact-checking can confirm a claim is stated consistently with a cited source without verifying the source itself is credible or current — a draft citing an outdated study as current fact will pass a check that only confirms internal consistency, not whether the underlying source still holds up.
Frequently asked questions
Does this verify facts automatically, or just flag what needs checking?
It flags claims that need verification with a note on what specifically to check, rather than auto-verifying and marking claims true or false — the actual verification judgment stays with the editor.
How current does our style guide need to be for this to work well?
It needs active maintenance — a stale style guide with outdated banned terms or formatting rules produces misleading flags, so the guide itself should be reviewed periodically, not just relied on as a fixed input.
Can editors override a flagged item?
Yes — flags are there to surface attention, not to block publishing unilaterally; an editor can explicitly waive a flag with their own judgment call logged for the record.
Does this slow down the editorial review process?
It's designed to speed it up by giving editors a targeted list instead of requiring them to manually check every claim and every style rule from memory on each pass.