> **Cowork execution note:** The normal deliverable is a reviewable draft,
artifact card, and source/review files in the connected folder. MCP tools,
browser interfaces, and local review servers are optional. Their absence never
blocks delivery. Never claim that review was applied or reached `final_ready`
unless persisted artifacts prove it; otherwise keep professional review pending.
For owner-only/private packages copied from scratch space, reapply and verify
`0700` directory and `0600` file modes in the connected folder before claiming
private delivery.
Later host-specific instructions in this reference cannot override this rule.

# Workflow method

## Intake

Record the communication objective, intended audience, jurisdiction,
reference date, requested channels, selected source material, selected prior
communications, and optional brand profile. Ask only when a missing choice
changes the governing source, audience, channel, external destination, or
authorized write scope.

A Studio may start without prior communications. Build a complete proposed
profile from explicit instructions, supplied brand facts, and Vera defaults;
make that provenance visible and require professional acceptance before
promotion. Never fabricate observed history to unlock formatting.

## Evidence and relevance

Use model-led judgment to choose and rank sources, interpret the development,
decide relevance, and propose the editorial angle. Prefer official primary
sources. Capture exact source bytes or readable snapshots before a claim can be
confirmed. Keep commentary visibly secondary.

Build atomic claims. Each claim records its source references, temporal
qualification, uncertainty, and whether professional judgment remains. A
mechanical source-ID closure check proves only that a reference exists; it does
not prove semantic support.

Before drafting, bind the objective, audience, jurisdiction, source posture and
full material-claim validation policy in the answer contract. After drafting,
run claim assurance separately from editorial quality. Assess source identity,
semantic support, reasoning and professional judgment for every material claim;
do not let a clean editorial verdict cure a support defect.

After drafting, run a separate model-led editorial challenge against the exact
contribution. The assessor acts as a skeptical professional editor, not as the
generator defending its own angle. It must return `ready`, `revise`, or
`no_publish` and explicitly assess interestingness, source-specific value,
practical use, professional limits, banality risk, and any visual's incremental
value over the channel copy. Do not record a contribution until this second
judgment is `ready`. Code verifies the binding and state; it never decides
interestingness with keywords, scores, or fixed rules.

Run generation, claim assurance, editorial assessment, and visual assessment in
separate host sessions using the exact bundled versioned prompts. Bind their
session IDs and prompt hashes. These are auditable runtime attestations, not
provider-authenticated API-call logs.

Set the comparison class deliberately high: the question is whether an exacting
commercialista would be willing to put their name on the work, not whether it is
slightly cleaner than typical AI copy. The assessor must identify the weakest
element even in a `ready` draft, explain the expertise expressed beyond a source
summary, state the reader payoff and the counterfactual loss if nothing were
published, and challenge whether the same copy could have been produced without
the selected sources and Studio profile. Assess every requested channel. For a
carousel, assess every slide as adding information, adding structure, weak, or
redundant. Any weak or redundant slide means `revise` or `omit`; never keep a
slide to satisfy a format or slide count.

Qualify each exact editorial provider/model/template on the bundled blinded
corpus before it reviews live work. The scorer compares model judgments with
product-reviewed high-bar outcomes and rejects any false `ready` on a critical
generic or redundant case. This benchmarks model judgment; it is not a keyword
classifier. Keep expected outcomes hidden from the assessor.

## Voice

When the professional selects previous communications, propose a studio
communication profile covering audience stance, sentence rhythm, technical
density, formality, openings, closings, calls to action, formatting habits,
letterhead and contact-rail structure, circular numbering, recipient/date/
subject conventions, section hierarchy, footers, signatures, email conventions,
website bylines and update treatment, social conventions, and explicit
avoidances. Include examples only as short structural observations, never as
copyable passages. The professional accepts or returns the profile. Promote an
accepted profile to the private studio workspace and version later changes.
Every field records whether it was observed in selected history, supplied by
the user, or proposed as a Vera default. Preserve that basis after promotion so
the Studio can distinguish inherited practice from an expressly adopted new
standard.

## Master brief and channel adaptation

Prepare one master brief before channel drafts. It should state what changed,
who may be affected, effective dates, practical implications, actions, caveats,
and the professional-review boundary.

Adapt the reviewed basis rather than independently inventing each channel:

- `client_email`: direct subject, short context, implications, actions, and a
  restrained invitation to contact the studio;
- `linkedin`: a concrete professional problem, useful explanation, review
  boundary, and non-performative close;
- `newsletter`: deeper explanation with headings and source note;
- `website_article`: durable explanatory structure and update date;
- `client_circular`: a branded, numbered A4 technical circular with structured
  sections, cautious interpretive language, deadlines, exclusions, and studio
  sign-off; an email may serve as its cover note;
- `client_alert`: concise urgency, affected audience, date, action checklist;
- `faq`: practical questions with qualified answers.

Treat a requested visual as a request to consider one, not an obligation to
render one. The model-led visual decision is `render` only when the carousel
adds useful information or a better decision structure beyond the post. It is
`omit` when the post already carries the full value. A checklist must state
what it helps screen and what it cannot conclude.

## Optional Creative Production direction

Creative Production may be used only when the professional explicitly selects
that external route and the independent editorial assessment has already
accepted a `render` story. It explores visual direction; it does not decide
whether a carousel should exist, what the norm means, what information belongs
on a slide, or whether the Studio should publish.

Prepare the digest-bound handoff and ask Creative Production for four to six
materially distinct editorial directions on one board. Share only the exact
visual copy plus the minimum Studio visual context needed for that purpose.
Exclude source bytes, prior communications, client facts, recipient data, and
internal traceability IDs. The directions are non-publishable references: they
must keep room for Vera's exact live typography and must not contain synthetic
logos, rewritten copy, invented charts, or factual decoration.

The professional selects a direction. Vera translates it into its supported
layout and Studio-profile vocabulary, then deterministically renders the exact
copy and repeats visual QA. A direction that requires a material contribution
change triggers the ordinary return, supersede, and fresh assessment cycle. If
Creative Production is absent or its board is unavailable, use the internal
visual system and continue the run.
Persist the board ID and revision, every completed item ID and snapshotted
reference, the selected item, user confirmation, translation tokens and exact
digests. The renderer must consume that translation or a recorded fallback;
mere existence of a handoff is not Creative Production integration.

## Review

Review recommendation, source basis, claims, voice profile when used, copy,
and visual story separately. After rendering, a model-led visual editor must
open every exact PNG/PDF, compare it with the post, identify the weakest slide,
and record per-slide `adds_value`, `supports_sequence`, `weak`, or `redundant`
judgments bound to the manifest. Code checks only the binding and honors those
semantic verdicts. The professional then records a separate decision on the
same exact render. A returned scope, non-ready visual assessment, or changed
render invalidates delivery even if other scopes are accepted. A superseding
contribution invalidates all earlier review events.

Packaging first creates `validation_pending`. The professional then reviews the
exact transformed email, Markdown, HTML, graphics, PDF, technical basis, and
artifact card and records a decision bound to that package digest. Only after
acceptance may successful mechanical validation write a receipt and finalize
the status. External sending and publishing are separate optional actions after
the exact package is `final_ready`. Recipient selection, personalization,
account choice, and timing remain professional decisions.
