MKT.1–MKT.4 · Example design

Check the claim before it goes public

A persuasive headline still needs a sound source. Follow a fictional survey through research, claim checks and editorial review to see what an editor would need before publication.

Run this workflow example ↗Discuss this kind of work ↗How a Blueprint is scoped

FROM THE FIRST RECORD TO THE NEXT REVIEWMarket signal → permitted publication

For practice and growth leads. Example design, with the source, receiving owner and human review shown at each step. Your Blueprint’s three opportunities are selected after measurement.

01 / HANDOFF DESIGN

What goes in. What comes out. Who decides.

Select a stage to inspect the records it needs, the work it prepares and the person who accepts or returns it. Follow a role link to try its own fictional example.

MKT.1–MKT.4EXAMPLE DESIGN · HUMAN REVIEW AT EACH STEP

Choose a step to see the input, prepared output and person who decides. The complete sequence remains available below.

Selected handoff / 01

Market signal

Practice lead owns this step.

What goes in: Approved question and public signal
What comes out: Research brief
Try a supporting role: Public researcher
Allowed sources and actions: Public sources; sanitised question only
Who decides: Lead checks relevance

Read the full handoff and exception sequence

Market signal (MKT.1) — Practice lead receives approved question and public signal and produces research brief. The handoff is dated public brief. Lead checks relevance.
Claim basis (MKT.2) — Marketing lead receives public brief and approved offer and produces claim set with rights. The handoff is cleared claim set. Owner clears claims.
Editorial draft (MKT.3) — Editor receives cleared claims and brief and produces marked article or asset. The handoff is draft with sources. Editor reviews evidence and tone.
Issue decision (MKT.3) — Editor / rights owner receives source-linked asset and produces approve, revise or decline. The handoff is approved issue version. Named editor approves release.
Publish & learn (MKT.4) — Channel owner receives approved version and consent rule and produces publication receipt and response review. This is the recorded outcome. Owner validates distribution.

Return path: Claim or rights rejected sends work from Issue decision to Claim basis.

02 / WHY ASSESS IT

What would make this worth changing?

Less repeated public research and fewer unsupported claims are hypotheses to test. Reach is not evidence of collected revenue.

MEASUREMENT BASIS

Records to inspect

Public source dates, approved proposition and claims, story permissions, editorial approval and publication receipt.

STOP / RETURN

Where it can fail

Unsupported claim or missing permission returns to source review; wrong audience or consent stops distribution.

DESIGN ACCEPTANCE

Cases to test

Test ordinary, unsupported-claim, no-rights, retired-source and wrong-recipient cases; inspect source, rights and issue receipts.

03 / SPECIALIST ROLES

Give each supporting role a clear job.

These candidate roles prepare specific parts of the work. Inspect the output and the reviewer before deciding whether a person, existing software, a rule or AI role is appropriate.

RESEARCH

Public researcher

Answer an approved public question with sources, dates and visible uncertainty.

Human review: The practice lead checks source quality and interpretation. The role cannot turn weak evidence into an approved claim.

Try this role’s example ↗

CHECK

Quality checker

Compare the proposed output with the original evidence and explain each discrepancy.

Human review: The named reviewer decides whether to correct or issue the work. A clean check is not professional sign-off.

Try this role’s example ↗

DRAFT

Deliverable writer

Turn approved findings into a marked draft with the source beside the claim.

Human review: The editor or partner approves issue or sending. An unsupported claim holds the draft; preparation is not permission to publish.

Try this role’s example ↗

COORD

Case coordinator

Show who needs to act, what is overdue and which earlier decision is holding up the case.

Human review: The operations or account owner approves commitments and resolves missing cover. This example sends no reminders or reassignments.

Try this role’s example ↗

All ten roles ↗

Find out whether this could improve your firm’s capacity

Start with a no-fee Firm Capacity Fit Call about a constraint on client work. If the paid Blueprint is the right next step, it measures one important revenue path, fully designs three connected improvements and ranks the first installation. A simpler process or no installation may be the right answer. Installation is separately scoped; pricing is quote-specific.

Book a free Fit Call ↗

Two promises.
In writing.

A clear Blueprint decision—or your money back.

14 calendar days after complete delivery and the decision review to request your Blueprint fee back.

No defect proof or installation purchase is required. We refund the fee actually paid within five business days. You keep the delivered Blueprint and its agreed use rights.

The agreed workflow works—or both fees back.

If the core workflow or an essential agent fails the agreed tests, we correct and retest within ten business days after the failure report and agreed lawful evidence/access. If it still fails, you may stop. We refund the installation fees actually paid and the associated Blueprint fee actually paid within five business days, with no duplicate refund.

How the guarantee works

Deposit upfront. The remaining installation balance is due only on written acceptance.

If the core workflow or an essential agent fails its agreed tests, we correct and retest within ten business days after the failure report and agreed lawful evidence/access. If it still fails, you may stop: installation fees actually paid and the associated Blueprint fee actually paid are refunded within five business days, with no duplicate refund. The remaining balance is waived; agreed restoration and handover are included.

30 calendar days of in-scope stabilisation follow written acceptance. Later support is a separate choice; no automatic retainer.

A clear Blueprint decision — or your Blueprint fee back. An agreed workflow and its essential agents working against their written tests — or the installation fees paid and the associated Blueprint fee back. Agreed ongoing service checks — or the affected support-period fee back.

This voluntary guarantee applies to new engagements agreed from 27 September 2026. It covers the defined Blueprint decision, separately scoped workflow-and-agent installation and separately scoped support service, not revenue, savings, professional judgement or client action. A third-party outage is outside the promise, but does not excuse a failure of Build n Bloom's agreed configuration or integration work.

The promise covers the agreed deliverable and written tests, not revenue, savings, adoption or professional judgement. Free calls and demos carry no paid-fee refund. Statutory rights remain unaffected; full terms apply.

Read the full terms and claim process