An approval checklist for AI-generated website copy
Review AI-assisted website copy for factual accuracy, useful detail, brand fit and approval before design or publication. Includes a review example.
AI-assisted copy can arrive looking finished: confident headings, polished paragraphs and a complete page structure. The project risk is treating that appearance as approval. Before a draft becomes a design input or a published page, check what it says, who can verify it and whether it helps the intended reader take the next step.
Assign a factual owner before editing the voice
Separate factual review from stylistic editing. The person improving sentence rhythm may not know whether the company offers weekend support, serves a particular location or includes a feature in every plan. Give someone with the relevant knowledge responsibility for checking those claims.
Ask for the source behind statements that could affect a customer’s decision. That might be an approved service description, product documentation or a current policy. If the source cannot be found, the answer is to investigate or remove the claim, not to soften it into a slightly less specific promise.
Label the draft’s status clearly. “Ready for factual review” is useful. “Final copy” is misleading if the factual owner has not seen it. The final-copy guide explains how to ask the client for a version that is actually ready for its intended use.
- Confirm products, services, locations and eligibility.
- Check names, numbers, dates and quoted statements.
- Remove invented customer stories or unsupported results.
- Identify claims that need a specialist reviewer.
Replace plausible generalities with real information
Read the page as a prospective customer. Can you tell what is offered, who it is for, what happens next and what limitations matter? A draft can be grammatically strong while saying little beyond “tailored solutions” and “exceptional service.” Ask the client for specific process details and examples they can stand behind.
For an illustrative service page, “We make onboarding effortless” might become “After the kickoff call, your project owner receives a checklist of the copy, image links and approvals needed for the first design review.” The second version is only appropriate if that is the company’s real process. Specificity is useful because it gives the reviewer something concrete to confirm.
Avoid inserting impressive numbers just to make the copy feel authoritative. A short explanation of a genuine workflow can be more useful than an unsupported percentage. Keep hypothetical examples visibly labeled so readers do not mistake them for customer results.
Check the page as a working journey
Review headings, links and calls to action together. If a page invites visitors to book a consultation, confirm that the linked destination actually supports that action. If the page mentions a downloadable guide, make sure the guide exists and matches the promise. The text and the destination should tell the same story.
Check how the content fits the intended page. An AI draft may repeat the same benefit in several sections or use headings that do not explain what follows. Remove duplication, answer the likely next question and give each section a clear purpose. This is an editorial judgment, not a word-count contest.
Use a simple evidence register while reviewing. It helps the client see why a sentence is blocked and what would resolve it. That is more actionable than a document covered with comments saying only “check this.”
Scroll sideways to see all columns.
| Draft statement | Review question | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| “Support is always available” | What hours and channels are actually offered? | Use the verified support policy |
| “Trusted by leading brands” | Which references are approved for publication? | Name approved references or remove |
| “Start in five minutes” | What task was timed and under what conditions? | Explain the actual first step instead |
Separate design approval from publication approval
Sometimes the design team needs representative content before every detail is settled. That can be reasonable if placeholders are marked and their effect is understood. It becomes risky when a draft’s temporary use is later interpreted as permission to publish it.
Record which version was reviewed and what it was approved for. A content owner might approve the structure for design while a product reviewer still checks claims. Keep a short list of unresolved items with owners and dates. Do not rely on a single “approved” label to communicate several different decisions.
The received-versus-reviewed article describes this distinction in the broader onboarding process. Gather can help you collect the answers and file links, but it does not automatically determine whether a claim is accurate or whether the right person approved it.
- Draft: still being prepared.
- Received: available for the team to inspect.
- Reviewed: checked for the intended project stage.
- Approved for publication: the responsible owner accepts this version.
Make the next request smaller and easier to answer
When returning copy to the client, identify the exact missing decision. “Please review everything” often produces a quick skim. “Please confirm the support hours in paragraph three and approve the service list in section two” gives the reviewer a bounded task.
Use the client content request email to write a specific follow-up, and keep the current version linked in the request. If several files exist, name which one is authoritative. Remove obsolete links from the active checklist or label them clearly as history.
Start the review process with the free website kickoff checklist. Add a separate item for factual approval where it matters, rather than burying that requirement in a general copy request. The result should be a document that the designer can use confidently and the client recognizes as the version they approved.
