Press release distribution: scope an approved-version reconciliation service

A narrow press release distribution service can help a buyer establish which approved file reached each contracted endpoint. Its deliverable is a reconciliation record, not a promise of coverage. Scope the work by identifying the missing connection, specifying the buyer's inputs, defining the evidence to deliver and agreeing who accepts it.

This is bounded evidence work, not responsibility for the buyer's entire announcement operation or a sale of editorial outcome. The offer should name the connection it can establish and keep the buyer's approval decision with the buyer, including where the work identifies a mismatch or an evidence gap.

Identify the missing connection you will resolve

The relevant buyer has an approved announcement and distribution records, but cannot readily connect them.

An in-house communications team or an agency handing work back to a client may have a final file, a transmission acceptance message and destination evidence without being able to demonstrate that they refer to the same version.

That is the problem your offer should name. Do not broaden it into a claim that the buyer needs more publicity, a better media list or a replacement distribution platform. Reconciling files and records does not answer those questions; it establishes only whether the available records connect the approved file and destination.

Ask the buyer to show the existing handover for an authorised announcement. Establish what the current process already proves and which connection remains missing. If the team already produces a complete record, your proposed service needs a specific additional contribution, not a different name for the same work.

The buyer's content owner should accept the deliverable. You can assemble and explain the evidence, but should not independently decide which announcement version the buyer authorised. Keep that approval decision with the buyer, including where your work identifies a mismatch or an evidence gap.

Define the deliverable before the activities

The deliverable is a buyer-readable reconciliation record linking the approved file to evidence for every agreed endpoint. Build the offer around that record rather than an open-ended promise to manage distribution. The buyer should be able to see the fields and supporting evidence that will make the result usable.

Specify these fields:

Keep the underlying evidence retrievable alongside the summary. The table is a reading aid, and its findings should remain traceable to the records used. A neat table is not a substitute for the source records from which its conclusions were drawn, as emphasised in the National Archives' information management guidance.

An endpoint must be an identifiable destination within the agreed assignment. A description such as "the media" or a claimed potential audience cannot identify where a particular file went. Use the buyer's actual endpoint names in the commissioned record; do not substitute a distributor's promotional reach claim.

Matching version labels do not establish that two files have identical contents. Agree whether you will compare the files themselves or only reconcile identifiers in supplied records. Make that limit explicit in the scope: a label check must not be sold as a content comparison.

Specify the buyer's inputs and your authority

Ask the buyer to provide the approved file, its approval record, the contracted endpoint list, transmission acceptance records, destination records and relevant correction history. For approved announcements, make the reference explicit: a folder containing several plausible final versions is not an instruction to choose one on the buyer's behalf.

Name the person who can obtain missing evidence. If only the buyer can access an account or request a destination record, that dependency belongs in the scope. Do not silently absorb an indefinite investigation into a bounded reconciliation assignment; state which buyer inputs are needed to proceed.

Separate the possible activities:

Include only the activities you have agreed to deliver. Retrieving evidence, changing announcement copy and sending a correction are different responsibilities. The agreed scope should say which activities are included and should not imply that one automatically authorises another. Record these boundaries before work begins.

State whether you have authority to request records, access accounts or communicate with the distributor. Permission to inspect a file does not itself include permission to alter it or resend it. Keep that distinction clear when you specify who may provide or act on the correction history.

Show the acceptance boundary with a sample record

Use a clearly labelled synthetic example to show the buyer what the deliverable looks like. The example below concerns a release labelled v3 and two test endpoints; it is not evidence of performance by a named provider. It makes the acceptance boundary visible without suggesting authority over a live announcement.

The content owner accepts the completed reconciliation record once the correction evidence confirms v3 at both endpoints. The acceptance event is that complete record, not media use. The preparer records the evidence and buyer decision; the example does not transfer the buyer's authority to make a correction.

In the commissioned assignment, the supporting detail belongs with the reconciliation record. Without identifiable endpoints and retrievable evidence, a summary cannot demonstrate that the approved version reached the agreed destinations. The record should distinguish a supported match from a gap in the evidence.

Agree how incomplete work will be described. If an endpoint cannot be identified, completed reconciliation is unavailable for that endpoint. A separately agreed gap report may still be useful, but it remains a report of missing evidence, not a completed reconciliation under another label.

Bound the effort and changes to scope

For this narrow reconciliation work, half a reviewer day to two reviewer days is an indicative planning band, with endpoint count and sample size determining effort.

External legal review, if needed, is separate. Treat the band as a planning aid, not a service deadline, and do not present it as a fixed completion commitment.

Distinguish accessible records from records that still need to be obtained. The work cannot be described as ready for completion while essential buyer inputs remain unavailable. Specify which dependency must be resolved before the affected part can proceed, so both parties can identify the work that is waiting.

Changes to the approved reference or endpoint list should prompt an explicit scope decision. The buyer should be able to tell whether a replacement file supersedes the original assignment or requires further comparison. Set out how changes to scope will be handled; an apparently small change should not create an undefined continuing obligation.

Also decide where the record ends. If a corrected file is issued after acceptance, is updating the reconciliation included, separately commissioned or outside the assignment? Settle that boundary before delivery rather than leaving the buyer to infer ongoing monitoring or assume that further work is included.

Explain what the record cannot establish

The service establishes the agreed connections between approval, transmission and destination evidence. It does not establish that a journalist read the announcement, that an editor used it or that an indexed page constitutes publication.

Keep the limits of the record alongside its findings so evidence of delivery is not treated as evidence of editorial use.

Keep transmission acceptance and destination evidence distinct. An acceptance message should not be presented as destination confirmation unless the supplied record supports that conclusion. Where the connection is missing, record the gap instead of upgrading an inference into a finding; explain which evidence is absent.

For announcements that are marketing communications, section 3 of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing, commonly called the CAP Code, requires evidence for objective claims capable of substantiation. A version reconciliation record is not a substitute for evidence supporting the announcement's claims.

Its commercial value is narrower: the buyer can inspect what was approved and what the supplied delivery records establish. Acceptance of that record does not confer legal clearance on the announcement. Keep that distinction in the offer as well as in the completed reconciliation.

Put the scope into a usable service description

Your service description should name the approved reference, agreed endpoints, included activities, required inputs and acceptance owner. Follow it with the treatment of missing evidence and changes to scope. That makes the proposed work and its boundaries visible before the assignment begins.

We will reconcile the buyer-approved announcement version against the supplied transmission and destination records for the agreed endpoints. We will deliver a record of matches, discrepancies and supporting correction evidence for acceptance by the buyer's content owner. Publication, coverage, readership, links, traffic, sales and reputation change are outside this service.

Make acceptance observable. The content owner should be able to trace the approved reference through the agreed evidence for every endpoint within scope. An unresolved mismatch remains unresolved; silence from the buyer is not proof that the versions match or evidence that acceptance has occurred.

The commercial offer is therefore precise: establish a missing connection where the buyer needs it, deliver the agreed record and explain its limits. Broader distribution management should remain outside the package unless separately commissioned. Keep that boundary clear in the written scope and at handover.