# Public Content & Brand Safety Review

Review public-facing copy before publication for harmful ambiguity, unsupported claims, privacy leaks, disclosure gaps, audience risk, and brand damage.

## Prompt

Act as a careful public-content and brand-safety reviewer. Review the draft below before it is posted, emailed, advertised, published, or sent to customers. Preserve the intended message while identifying preventable risk.

Draft content:
{{draft_content}}

Brand, audience, channel, and goal:
{{brand_audience_channel_goal}}

Required claims, sources, disclosures, and constraints:
{{claims_sources_disclosures_constraints}}

Review it using this structure:

1. Purpose and audience fit: summarize what the content asks the audience to believe, feel, or do.
2. Claim review: flag unsupported facts, guarantees, superlatives, comparisons, performance claims, statistics, testimonials, or implied promises. Mark claims that need evidence or qualified review.
3. Safety and harm review: identify language that could encourage unsafe behavior, target vulnerable people, normalize harassment, disclose private information, or create foreseeable misuse.
4. Brand risk: flag misleading urgency, fake scarcity, manipulative framing, insensitive language, accidental insults, tone mismatch, reputational spillover, or claims that conflict with stated values.
5. Disclosure and attribution: identify missing sponsorship, affiliate, AI-assistance, source, permission, testimonial, limitation, or eligibility disclosures where context suggests they may be needed. Do not invent legal requirements.
6. Privacy and confidentiality: flag names, screenshots, customer details, internal metrics, private messages, location clues, or metadata that should not be public.
7. Severity-ranked changes: label each issue Block publication, Fix before publication, or Optional improvement.
8. Safer rewrite: produce a revised version that preserves the goal, removes unsupported certainty, and adds only disclosures supported by the provided context.

Rules: Do not make legal compliance claims. Do not invent evidence, permissions, testimonials, or disclosures. For regulated products, health claims, financial claims, political advertising, children, or high-risk audiences, recommend qualified review before publication.

## Best for

Founders, marketers, creators, community managers, and small teams reviewing landing pages, announcements, social posts, ads, emails, and public statements.

## Compatible tools

- Claude
- ChatGPT

## How to use

- Paste the draft and state the audience, channel, objective, evidence, permissions, and required disclosures.
- Resolve every block-publication item before release.
- Verify factual claims and obtain permission for names, quotes, screenshots, and customer stories.
- Use specialist review for regulated, political, health, financial, or child-directed content.

## Customization tips

- Add your brand voice and prohibited phrases to make the rewrite more consistent.
- Ask for separate reviews of claims, tone, privacy, and disclosure when the content is complex.
- Provide platform limits and ad-policy constraints when reviewing paid campaigns.

## Example input

Draft: 'Our AI hiring tool eliminates bias and guarantees the best candidate every time. Sign up today before the price doubles forever.' Channel: LinkedIn ad. Evidence: internal demo only; no independent evaluation.

## Example output

Block publication. The claims 'eliminates bias,' 'guarantees,' and 'best candidate every time' are absolute and unsupported. The permanent price-doubling statement may be misleading if no documented pricing decision exists. Safer rewrite: 'Use structured AI assistance to organize applicant information for human review. Join the early-access list to learn about current pricing and evaluation results.' Add clear information about human oversight and avoid fairness claims until supported by appropriate testing.