Operations
Part of How to run copywriting services operations that scale
How to build a copywriting services quality checklist
How to score copywriting services quality with a checklist covering briefs, claims evidence, crawlability, approvals and review, for UK marketing teams.
What to take away
A copywriting services quality checklist is a written set of pass or fail tests applied to every draft before publication, so quality stops depending on who happens to read it.
- Score drafts against fixed criteria and record the score beside the file.
- Check claims against evidence before copy reaches a client, because the CAP Code covers UK marketing communications.
- Confirm the page can be crawled and indexed before it goes live.
- Keep one named owner for the final sign-off decision.
Define quality before writing
Quality needs a definition agreed at briefing, not at delivery. Write down what a pass looks like for accuracy, tone, structure and evidence.
The pre-publication checklist
Run every item and record the result. One fail blocks publication. The table below is the template.
Pre-Publication Quality Checklist
- Brief matchanswers stated audience and intent
- Claim evidencenamed source and date
- Regulatory fitmeets CAP Code and UK rules
- Readabilityshort sentences, jargon explained
- Crawlabilityindexable, canonical set, no noindex
- Linksinternal and external links resolve
- Sign-offnamed owner approved final file
| Check | Pass condition | Typical time |
|---|---|---|
| Brief match | Answers stated audience and intent | 5 min |
| Claim evidence | Named source and date for every factual claim | 10 min |
| Regulatory fit | Meets CAP Code and UK advertising rules | 10 min |
| Regulated-sector second reviewer | Financial, health and children's claims cleared by a specialist | 15 min |
| AI fact-checking | Every source, statistic and quotation verified against original | 10 min |
| Readability | Sentences under 25 words, paragraphs under 60, total within 10% of brief | 10 min |
| Heading structure | One H1, logical H2 and H3 order, no empty headings | 5 min |
| Meta description | Unique, 150-160 characters, matches page intent | 5 min |
| Crawlability | Indexable, canonical set, no accidental noindex | 10 min |
| Links | Internal and external links resolve | 5 min |
| Sign-off | Named owner approved final file | 5 min |
Score each row 1 to 5. A 5 meets the pass condition with evidence in the file. A 3 needs a minor fix within 24 hours. A 1 fails and blocks publication. A draft needs an average of 4 or higher and no row below 3. Any 1 on claim evidence blocks outright.
Example: a draft claimed a savings rate beat inflation with no source. The claim row scored 1 and blocked publication. The writer cited the Bank of England base rate on a named date. The row then scored 5.
Briefing is production, as the operations and delivery guide sets out.
Claim evidence row: ask three questions. What is the source? How old is it? Does the sentence say what the source says? UK advertising rules apply to marketing communications, and the ASA and CAP research library covers how audiences read claims, so evidence belongs in the file.
Claim Evidence Decision
Does the claim have a named source and date?
Cite it properly in the file
Cut the claim before publication
Crawlability and technical checks
Good copy on an unindexable page earns nothing. Confirm the page returns a normal status, the canonical points to itself, and robots directives allow indexing. Google's overview of its crawlers explains which user agents fetch pages.
Give the writer CMS read access. A copywriter who cannot see the rendered page cannot spot a broken heading structure or a missing meta description.
Approvals and ownership
One named owner signs off. Everyone else comments, and comments expire when the owner decides.
Set a revision limit in the statement of work. Two rounds is common. Unlimited rounds destroy margin and delay launch without improving the copy.
AI-assisted drafting needs its own line in the checklist. Check for invented facts, sources and confident phrasing. Demand for those skills is visible in the AI marketing training market, so treat tool fluency as a capability to verify, not a reason to skip review.
After publication
Review the checklist itself. Retire a row when it has caught nothing in two quarters and no published error traces back to it.
Then check performance against the original brief. The launch review method turns published work into evidence for the next brief.
Store the completed checklist in the same CMS entry, DAM record or project folder as the live file. Six months later it explains a sentence's wording.
Common questions
Who should own the quality checklist?
The person accountable for publication, usually a content or marketing lead. Writers can self-check, but someone senior holds the final pass or fail decision.
How many revision rounds should we allow?
Two is a workable default, then a paid third round if the brief changed. Put the number in the statement of work so it is not renegotiated mid-project.
Does AI drafting change the checklist?
It adds a fact-checking row. Every named source, statistic and quotation must be verified against the original before publication.
How often should the checklist be updated?
Quarterly, or after any significant failure. Remove rows that never catch anything and add rows for problems that reached publication.
