Compliance and Quality Pre-Review
Compliance and Quality Pre-Review
Material checked against your own written rules before anyone signs it off, with every finding ranked and traceable.
What a pre-review is
Every regulated or quality-controlled business has a step where somebody reads a thing before it goes out. Marketing copy against advertising rules, a submittal against a specification, a claim against a program's guidelines, a test record against a quality plan.
A pre-review reads that material against the firm's own written rules and returns findings. Each finding names the rule, quotes the passage that triggered it, and carries a severity so the serious ones are read first.
The output is a ranked queue, never a decision. A named reviewer accepts or dismisses each finding, and the record of who decided what stays attached to the item.
What you get
What gets built
One material type, one ruleset, and the screen the reviewers actually work on.
The ruleset, written as checks
Each rule gets an identifier, the clause it comes from, and a plain statement of what a breach looks like. Rules that are a matter of judgement are marked as such rather than forced into a check. Most rulesets turn out to contain several rules nobody has read since they were written.
Severity classification
Findings are ranked, so a reviewer opening the queue sees the serious ones first and the cosmetic ones last. The scale is yours — what counts as serious is a decision the review team makes, not a default the system arrives with.
The passage that triggered it
Every finding quotes the sentence or the field it came from and names the rule behind it. A reviewer can then agree or dismiss in seconds instead of re-reading the whole item.
A suggested correction
Where the rule implies a specific fix — a missing disclosure line, a field left blank, a term that has to be worded a particular way — the finding carries the suggested wording. The reviewer accepts it, edits it, or throws it out.
A review screen
The item on one side, the findings on the other, accept or dismiss with a reason. How fast that screen is decides whether the system gets used at all.
A disposition record
What was flagged, who decided, what they decided and when. Written for the person who asks about it a year later, and exportable when an auditor wants the trail rather than the summary.
A measured flag rate
Run against material whose correct outcome is already recorded, so correct flags, misses and false flags are counted rather than asserted. That count is what the severity thresholds get tuned against.
Versioned rules and coverage reporting
Every finding records which version of the ruleset produced it, and the coverage report shows which rules fire constantly and which have never fired at all. A rule that never fires is either never breached or never really being checked.
How it works
How the work runs
Collect the rules and the decided examples
The written rules, plus a sample of material that has already been reviewed with the outcome recorded. Both come from the people who currently do the reviewing, which is usually the first time the rules have been gathered in one place.
Turn the rules into checks
Each rule is restated so that an answer is checkable, and the ones that genuinely need a person are named rather than automated badly. That list of exclusions is part of the deliverable.
Measure against known outcomes
The checks run against the decided sample, and the result is a count of correct flags, missed items and false flags rather than an impression from a demonstration.
Put it in front of reviewers
Findings go into the queue, dismissal reasons get collected, and the severity thresholds are tuned against what reviewers actually do with them in the first fortnight.
What matters
What decides whether reviewers keep using it
A pre-review demonstrates well on a clean example. These are the things that decide whether it survives contact with the review team.
False flags cost more than misses
A queue that flags everything gets skimmed, and a skimmed queue is worse than no queue. The tuning target is a dismissal rate the reviewers tolerate, and that number comes from them rather than from a benchmark.
A rule that cannot be stated cannot be checked
Some rules resolve to a fact in the document: a date, a disclosure line, a signature, a value inside a tolerance. Others are a judgement about tone or context, and those get surfaced for attention rather than asserted as findings.
Severity is the product
Two hundred unranked observations is a second job for somebody. The ranking is what turns findings into a queue that can be worked through before lunch, which is the whole difference between a system used daily and one abandoned in week three.
Measuring it needs decided examples
Accuracy can only be measured against material whose correct outcome is recorded. Building that set with the review team is part of the work, and it cannot be produced by the system reviewing itself.
The same item can produce two different finding sets
Generative output varies between runs, so checking one item by hand proves nothing. The build includes a set of items with known outcomes that is re-run whenever the rules, the prompt or the model version change.
Rules change and the archive does not
Rulebooks get revised, specifications get superseded, and a program publishes new guidelines mid-year. Every finding records the version it was produced under, so a review from March is not silently judged against August's rules.
Who it is for
Where this pays
Regulated marketing and communications
Copy, campaigns and client-facing material that has to clear a rulebook before it is published. Usually queued behind one person who reads everything.
Construction and manufacturing quality
Submittals, test records and inspection reports checked against the specification, the code and the quality plan. The same shape covers nonconformance write-ups and internal process audits.
Claims and program review
Claims or applications checked against a program's guidelines before a decision, where the reviewer has a turnaround time to hold and accuracy is measured.
Professional firms with a sign-off step
Any firm where a senior person reads everything before it leaves. That reading is often the bottleneck and almost never the part they were hired for.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Does the system approve or reject anything?
No. It produces findings with a severity, and a named person accepts or dismisses each one. The decision and the record of it stay with your reviewer.
What do you need from us to start?
The written rules, and a sample of material that has already been reviewed with the outcome recorded. The second one is usually the part a firm has to assemble, and it is worth the effort because everything else gets measured against it.
How accurate is it?
That gets measured during the build against your own decided examples, and reported as correct flags, misses and false flags. A number quoted before anybody has seen your rules would be made up.
What happens when a rule changes?
The ruleset is versioned and every finding records the version it was produced under. Recent material can be re-run against the new rules, and the coverage report shows what the change actually affected.
Can it review more than one kind of material?
Yes, but they are built one at a time. Each material type has its own rules, its own awkward cases and its own severity scale, and the second one is quicker than the first.
Where does the material go?
It stays in storage your company owns, and the review runs against it inside your own cloud account. Nothing is copied to a third-party review service.
Also on this site
Name the review that holds things up
The step where one person reads everything before it goes out. That is where this starts.
(844) 422-7000