Philippines content assistant internal link review checklist

The route-local operating guide

Start with the decision. A internal link review lane should help a manager answer a specific publishing question, not merely show activity. Define the work unit as one proposed source-to-destination link. Name the route, reader, requested result, authoritative inputs, exclusions, reviewer, and due window before work starts. This creates a finish line another person can inspect.

Use intake to expose missing information. The main failure to prevent is that links are added for volume instead of reader value. If a required fact, source, route, or approval is absent, mark the item waiting and ask one narrow question. A Philippines-based contributor should not fill a consequential gap with a plausible assumption simply to keep the queue moving.

Keep evidence beside the work. Completion for this lane requires a table showing source passage, anchor, destination, response, and rationale. Separate direct observation from interpretation and record the source date, relevant scope, and limitation. A working link proves that a page exists; it does not establish that every nearby conclusion is supported.

Use explicit states: ready, active, owner review, correction, held, release ready, and verified. Give each state one owner, next action, and exit condition. “In progress” is too broad for daily publishing because it hides whether a writer, researcher, editor, developer, or publisher must act next.

Make the authority boundary operational. The editor owns navigation intent and commercial destinations. The assistant checks URLs, anchors, context, and broken routes. Support staff should not change pricing, legal language, customer promises, route strategy, or publication status merely because those fields are editable. Least-privilege access and a named removal owner belong in the setup.

Review the riskiest element first. Check the reader question before polishing, evidence before approving a conclusion, and canonical identity before release. Return findings with the exact location, observed mismatch, expected condition, and decision owner. Specific corrections become reusable checks; vague feedback creates another interpretation task.

Measure the system without turning a small sample into a performance verdict. Useful observations include intake completeness, first-pass acceptance, correction category, hold age, review age, and route verification. Keep the denominator and period beside every rate, then inspect representative records before changing targets or permissions.

Close with a handoff that names the route, current version, completed checks, evidence links, open decision, next action, owner, and safe resume condition. After release, compare the public page with the approved record. A successful build shows assembly; it does not prove that the reader received the intended article.

For this August 31, 2026 release, verify the visible publication date, truthful datePublished value of 2026-08-31, canonical URL, Blog index entry, sitemap identity, and live response. Count the article once by canonical slug, preserve unrelated routes, and stop if the public page disagrees with the approved record.

Define the work lane

Treat one proposed source-to-destination link as the reviewable unit and attach its evidence before changing status.

Verify the release

Use a table showing source passage, anchor, destination, response, and rationale as the durable closeout record.