The check highlights the issue and leads to its basis
A list of general ratings is not enough. Each note points to a passage, rule or source and suggests a possible correction.
New Year’s Eve package post
The copy includes a lower price than the current website, while the graphic uses a withdrawn version of the logo.
Two corrections with explanations
The system flags the price and graphic, leads to the sources and prepares a version of the copy without the unconfirmed amount.
- issue identified in the material
- rule or source supporting the note
- suggested correction for review
A shared quality gate for AI and the team
The module checks materials regardless of who prepared them. It covers facts, language, tone, required elements, repetitions and available asset statuses.
Verifies facts
Compares prices, dates, offer details and claims with approved sources.
Checks presentation
Assesses tone, language, CTA, required elements and compliance with the selected channel’s rules.
Detects repetition
Compares the material with post history and identifies overly similar content or a reused asset.
How does the content check work?
Reading the material
AI analyses the copy, graphic, channel, objective and planned publication date.
Comparing with the rules
It checks required elements, restrictions, tone and channel-specific limits.
Verifying sources
It links facts to the offer, checks the status of the materials used and compares them with historical content.
List of corrections
It returns issues with explanations and suggests changes for a staff member to approve.
Every note has a specific basis
The check distinguishes a clear non-compliance issue from a stylistic suggestion. It shows the rule, source or historical post behind each note.
What does AI use?
- copy, graphic and publication metadata
- approved channel rules
- fact sources and current offers
- post history and asset statuses
What does the team receive?
- list of errors, risks and suggestions
- explanation linked to a source or rule
- suggested revised version of the material
AI detects the issue; a person decides
Not every stylistic difference is an error, and some exceptions are intentional. The team can accept or reject a correction, or send the material for additional review.
A staff member reviews the notes, selects corrections, can explain an exception and approves the final version of the material.
The module does not reply to comments, moderate discussions, assign usage rights to assets or publish content.
Fewer errors reaching hotel profiles
The price, date and offer details are compared with a current, approved source.
Materials follow the rules for tone, channel, CTA and required elements.
The team receives the identified issue, its basis and a proposed solution.
Rules, sources and history create one review
Publication Analysis and Publication Rules provide the foundation. Response Analysis, Channel Comparison and the Asset Library can expand the context being checked.
Related process elements
Frequently asked questions
Does the module check content written by people?
Yes. The same checks can cover materials prepared by AI and employees.
Does every comment block the material?
No. The rules distinguish blocking errors, risks requiring a decision and ordinary stylistic suggestions.
Does the check cover audience comments?
No. It can use aggregated insights from Reaction analysis, but it does not reply to or moderate comments.
Is the revised version published automatically?
No. The suggested change remains for review and does not trigger publication.