Approval does not mean the email was sent
Illustration: the lifecycle owner approves revision 3 of a message for a defined eligible cohort. A later edit changes the offer, so revision 4 returns to review. Once accepted, the channel owner checks availability and sending eligibility, then records the actual sending outcome. The approval record by itself never counts as delivery or revenue.
| Review field | Illustrative record |
|---|---|
| Proposed change | Revision 3: update the care instruction to wash at 30°C. |
| Evidence | The approved care label for the exact product. |
| Decision and status | Product owner: approved. Publication: still pending. A later offer change needs a new review. |
Assign decisions to people with the right context
NIST’s AI risk framework calls for defined responsibilities for human oversight. For a marketing team, our proposed review record names the content or channel owner and any product-data reviewer. Agree who can approve the action, who executes it and who handles a failure. These roles may belong to the same person in a small team, but the responsibilities should remain visible.
Source: NIST: AI risk management core ↗
Review the change, not just the fluent explanation
Show the current item and the proposed revision, source references, relevant dates, assumptions and missing information. For email, include the exact audience rule and message version; for content, include the URL and factual claims. Ask the reviewer to verify the source, not merely rate how convincing the explanation sounds. Return an unsupported claim for correction before accepting the output.
Bind approval to a version and a scope
Record the proposal identifier, revision, reviewer, timestamp, decision and reason. Specify the destination and permitted change. A material edit after approval needs renewed review; approval of copy is not permission to change an audience or budget. Keep only necessary evidence in an access-controlled record under your organisation’s retention rules. This is a proposed operating method, not a claim about Faccelerate’s logging implementation.
Check execution and make failure visible
After an authorised action, inspect its result in the destination system. Record the live revision or sending status, plus any error or partial outcome. Avoid blindly repeating an uncertain action that could create duplicates. Name the owner of correction or rollback; sent messages may not be recallable. If a source, approval or permission is missing, leave the proposal pending and explain what resolves it.
Use this at work
- Show the exact revision, evidence and destination.
- Record the reviewer’s decision and reason.
- Review material changes again.
- Confirm execution separately and assign failure handling.
Reference material
Sources checked 4 October 2026. Definitions are attributed where cited; the retail review methods and examples are Faccelerate editorial proposals, not product capability claims.