Basic
$199/moBelow DA/DR targetNot a fitExcluded from recommendation
AGENCY AI TRANSFORMATION
SITETRAIL CERTIFIED
Your learning path: 16 lessons.
Module 03 / Lesson 10 · Read, apply, check
Replace generic AI prose with useful detail, clear reasoning and an authentic editorial voice.
Read the draft as a sequence of claims and decisions. Identify the reader question, the evidence that answers it and the implication that follows. Remove sections that repeat a benefit without adding explanation. Ask what changed, how the process works and why a reader should care. A draft can be grammatically perfect while saying almost nothing. Substantive editing improves the information and logic first; sentence rhythm and punctuation come later, once the article deserves to be read.
Flag phrases such as transformative solutions, unparalleled expertise and revolutionary growth when they substitute for evidence. Replace them with an observed decision, example, constraint or measured result. Explain the mechanism: what did the team do differently and what happened? Keep limitations close to the claim they qualify. A useful paragraph can acknowledge a tradeoff and still make the client look competent. Specificity builds credibility because readers can understand the work, rather than being asked to accept a collection of confident marketing adjectives.
Use approved interviews and existing writing to identify vocabulary, sentence patterns, preferred explanations and phrases the client would never use. Separate voice from factual claims: a direct-speaking founder can still make a careful qualification. Give AI a short guide with positive examples and a few clear exclusions, then compare the output with the original material. Do not turn every client into the same polished executive persona. Preserve memorable wording when it communicates accurately, especially when it reflects genuine experience rather than a borrowed slogan.
Use a substance pass, an evidence pass, a voice pass and a final presentation check. For each major change, record the reason rather than simply rewriting the text. Distinguish must-fix defects from preferences so the team does not spend hours debating harmless style choices while missing an unsupported number. Read the opening and conclusion together to catch promises the body never fulfils. Before approval, inspect headings, captions and callouts as carefully as the paragraphs; readers often encounter those first and may never read the qualification buried below.
Does the article explain a useful decision or mechanism?
Do claims, scope and quotations match their sources?
Would this client plausibly use these words and examples?
Do headings, captions and conclusions preserve the meaning?
A fictional draft says a facilities client “leverages innovative technology to deliver unparalleled efficiency.” The editor returns to the interview and finds a better sentence: the team now reviews overnight exception alerts before dispatching technicians, which prevented repeat visits in the documented pilot. The revised paragraph explains the old sequence, the new decision and the limited evidence. The client’s voice guide favors short explanations and practical examples, so the editor removes the grand claims and keeps the operations director’s phrase about “fixing the handoff before buying another dashboard.” The article becomes more recognizable and useful. Its credibility comes from a real operational choice, while the pilot qualification remains beside the result instead of disappearing in a footnote.
Another editor runs the draft through repeated prompts to make it more premium, authoritative and human. The wording changes, but the article still contains no mechanism, example or useful distinction. A final prompt adds casual expressions that the client never uses. The text may evade a reader’s expectation of formal AI prose, yet it has become less authentic. Stylistic variation cannot replace the reporting and reasoning that the original draft lacked.
Editing for a human voice is not a contest to fool an AI detector. Such a goal encourages cosmetic changes and distracts from whether the article is accurate, original and worth reading. Judge the work against the client’s real language and the reader’s needs. An ordinary clear sentence is better than a forced personal anecdote or invented quirk.
Do not improve voice by inventing experiences, opinions or quotations. Keep substantive changes linked to approved evidence and return new claims for verification. Respect the intended publication’s style and disclosure requirements; a client’s preferred tone does not override the editorial standards of the destination.
Do this today · 30 minutes
Rewrite the facilities paragraph using a three-rule client voice guide.
A document or spreadsheet and the illustrative case in this lesson. Use synthetic or already approved material for practice; no paid account or real client data is required.
Before: Does the article explain a useful decision or mechanism?
After: Do headings, captions and conclusions preserve the meaning?
Notes stay in this browser. Download a copy to keep them.
Test this worksheet on one bounded assignment. Record the reviewer’s findings, revise the method and assign the next review date.
Before you move on
An article has smooth sentences and a friendly tone, but every section repeats that the client is innovative. There is no explanation of the actual process or evidence of the outcome. Which editing action will create the greatest improvement?
Next lesson →Associated Press: newsroom standards for AI
PRSA: professional ethics resources
Lesson edition 1.0 · References reviewed 16 October 2026 · Practical exercise reviewed 16 October 2026. Examples are illustrative teaching scenarios.
Sitetrail service · NewsPass
Put your SEO, PR and generative engine optimization strategy into practice. NewsPass supports search visibility, media presence, brand credibility and discoverability in AI answers.
Compare the delivery costs for your campaign using the same calculator as the Sitetrail homepage. Choose a target authority range, your typical placement cost and expected monthly volume.
Illustrative cost comparison using October 2026 plan prices; check current terms before purchase. Assumes one eligible placement per credit and comparable selected opportunities, not a prediction of rankings, revenue, coverage or AI citations. Actual suitability depends on audience fit, editorial requirements and the current plan terms. DA/DR are third-party metrics, not Google scores.
Choose publications available on your plan, prepare useful content for the audience and submit it for editorial review. Track accepted placements in your dashboard and evaluate them against your campaign goals.
Original evidence. Human editorial judgment.
Use the worksheets to turn each lesson into a real decision. Improve the method as you learn from client evidence, editorial checks and delivery results.
Course outline · Free assessment · Privacy
No account is required. Progress, first-attempt lesson answers, worksheets and assessment results are stored in this browser when storage is available. They do not sync across devices. Download copies to retain them; clearing browser data removes local records.
Your free trial starts automatically. No license key is needed yet.