The playbook
Digital PR: Checklist
Use this digital PR checklist before a new release, a handoff, or a scheduled review. Its purpose is to verify the decisions that affect relevant earned coverage. Check an actual page or query record; a box marked complete without evidence does not show that the customer journey works.
Put the task in context
An original study should explain the question, data source, sample, calculation, and limitations. Offer journalists the actual finding and underlying context. A dramatic headline cannot compensate for a sample that does not support the claim being made.
Before you use the checklist
Name the exact item being checked and its purpose. Gather story, evidence, publisher, contact status. If one of those details is unknown, mark it as unknown and assign a way to resolve it. An invented value makes the checklist look complete while weakening every later decision.
Working checklist
| Check | Evidence to keep | Responsible role |
|---|---|---|
| Find a useful question supported by original evidence | A dated observation showing how story was verified | SEO lead |
| Prepare a clear finding with transparent methodology | A dated observation showing how evidence was verified | content or development owner |
| Pitch appropriate writers with a concise relevant angle | A dated observation showing how publisher was verified | analytics owner |
Check the failure path
- Look specifically for this failure: publishing dramatic claims unsupported by the underlying data.
- Disclose methods limits and the exact evidence behind the story. Record the actual correction, not just the intention to make it.
- Repeat the affected task after the correction and check contact status.
- Make sure the next owner can find the decision and supporting evidence.
Use three outcomes for each check
Mark an item as complete only when the expected behavior or information has been observed. Mark it as incomplete when a required condition is absent. Use not applicable when the condition genuinely does not belong to the chosen scope, and write a short reason. These states keep a review useful without forcing every process into an identical mold.
For example, if the check is “Find a useful question supported by original evidence,” a meeting about the subject is not the evidence itself. Retain the relevant story and evidence, the decision made from them, and the result of checking that decision. The record should allow someone who missed the meeting to understand what changed.
Decide what must be resolved first
An incomplete item that prevents create credible stories and resources that relevant publications may reference deserves attention before a cosmetic improvement. Assign an owner and a next action to that issue. Keep optional refinements visible, but do not let them obscure a failure in the core process.
Close the review
Recheck corrected items and note anything still uncertain. The checklist is finished when the next owner understands what was verified and what remains open. Follow relevant earned coverage using a consistent definition so later reviews can connect execution quality with useful results.
Search results and indexing decisions are not controlled by the publisher. Record what your team changed and what was observed afterward. Avoid turning a correlation between a release and a traffic change into a claim of proven causation.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now