Content review process

Every page moves through six states, in order:

1. Draft — authored by the Certuvo Editorial Team against current official sources, with each factual claim's supporting source recorded as it is written.
2. Technical review
3. Subject-matter review
4. Claims review
5. Approved
6. Published

The three review stages are conducted under the Certuvo Editorial Board and each is recorded in the CMS with its outcome. A page that fails any stage returns to draft with the reviewer's notes; it re-enters the pipeline from the start of review, not from where it left off.

Technical review checks that the page works as a published artifact: heading structure and metadata are correct, internal and external links resolve, sources are attached in the correct format, dates are populated, structured data matches the visible content, and the page renders correctly and accessibly. Nothing about the subject matter is judged here — this stage exists so later reviewers evaluate a complete, working page.

Subject-matter review checks that the content is right: exam structure, content areas and weights match the current official blueprint or syllabus; explanations of accounting, finance and audit concepts are technically correct; advice is reasonable and consistent with the rest of the library; and nothing material is omitted in a way that would mislead. The reviewer works with the official publications open alongside the draft.

Claims review is a line-by-line pass over every factual assertion. Each claim must have a stored official source that actually supports it; the source must be current; and any claim that cannot be sourced is removed or rewritten as clearly labelled editorial judgement. This stage is also the enforcement point of the AI content policy: any unsourced statement that entered a draft — from any origin, human or AI-assisted — stops here.

A page that clears all three stages moves to Approved, and an approver who did not author the page confirms the recorded stage outcomes before releasing it to Published. Publication sets the page's displayed dates, writes the initial entry in its change history, and adds the page to the public content changelog. Only published pages appear in navigation and sitemaps; there are no indexable half-finished pages.

Publication is not the end of review. Every page carries a next-review date, set by default 180 days ahead, and shown on the page. Two things bring a review forward:

• An official change — a new blueprint, syllabus revision or fee change — triggers the timelines in the exam blueprint update policy, which override the default schedule for affected pages.
• An accepted report under the corrections policy puts the affected page into review immediately.

A completed re-review updates the last-reviewed date and, where anything changed, the page's change history.

A page that no longer meets the editorial standards at re-review is flagged update required and queued for revision. If it cannot be brought current — because the official material has changed faster than we can revise, or the topic no longer justifies the maintenance — it is unpublished. We treat a missing page as more honest than a stale one.