Turn one pricing brief into consistent launch copy
A handoff is only complete when the source record, customer copy and machine-readable data agree. This synthetic exercise shows the exact output I can return from a paid content-operations test: corrected copy, a source-linked exception log, a reusable checklist and a verification log.
The supplied source of truth
{
"plan": "Starter",
"monthlyPriceUsd": 29,
"annualPriceUsd": 290,
"trialDays": 14,
"cardRequired": false,
"cancellationEffective": "end_of_period"
}
For this exercise, that record is authoritative. I do not silently choose between conflicting claims.
Correction matrix
| Surface | Observed | Delivered correction | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hero | Starter — $25 per month | Starter — $29/month or $290/year | monthlyPriceUsd, annualPriceUsd |
| FAQ | 7-day trial; card required; immediate termination | 14-day trial, no card required; access through the current billing period | trialDays, cardRequired, cancellationEffective |
| Structured data | Monthly price 25; annual offer missing | Monthly 29 / P1M; annual 290 / P1Y; USD | Price fields plus billing duration |
Exception log
- Price drift, high severity. The hero and structured record advertise $25, while the supplied authority says $29.
- Trial eligibility drift, high severity. The FAQ shortens the trial and adds a card requirement that the authority explicitly excludes.
- Cancellation ambiguity, medium severity. “Immediate termination” conflicts with end-of-period access and can change a buyer's decision.
- Annual option omitted, medium severity. The source contains an annual price, but the customer and machine-readable surfaces do not.
Repaired records
Hero: Starter — $29/month or $290/year
FAQ: Start a 14-day trial with no card required. Cancel any time;
access continues through the end of the current billing period.
Structured offer:
monthlyPrice: 29 USD, billingDuration: P1M
annualPrice: 290 USD, billingDuration: P1Y
Reusable pre-publish checklist
- Name the authoritative brief or record before editing.
- Check plan name, price, currency, billing period and annual/monthly math.
- Check trial length, payment-method requirement and cancellation timing.
- Compare visible copy with structured data and checkout labels.
- Record unresolved contradictions instead of guessing.
- Run deterministic assertions on fields that can be represented as data.
Verification log
A dependency-free Node.js check compares every repaired claim with the fixture. Its completed run returned:
PASS hero monthly price
PASS hero annual price
PASS trial length
PASS no-card rule
PASS cancellation timing
PASS structured monthly price
PASS structured annual price
7/7 content-handoff assertions passed
Acceptance boundary
A real test starts only after the client identifies the controlling source and permitted surfaces. I would return uncertain policy, legal or payment language as an exception for approval rather than invent a resolution. One revision is included when the reviewer changes a confirmed rule.
This is a synthetic, client-neutral sample. It does not claim work for a third party. The fixture, corrections, checklist and verification output were manually reviewed after AI-assisted drafting.
Need a clean content handoff?
Send one brief and up to three public or redacted deliverables. I will confirm the acceptance checklist and fixed fee before starting.
Email Tiee