Capability template for customer support and service
Reader correction request brief
When a reader disputes a fact or reports a missing credit, the editor gets one internal note: the request, the published passage, the evidence supplied and the questions only an editor can answer. A draft acknowledgement waits for the audience lead's approval.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
A reader writes in to say a figure is wrong or a credit is missing. Instead of a forwarded email with a line of context, the responsible editor receives a single page. It splits the message into its separate claims, shows the exact words that were published for each one, lists what the reader supplied, and sets beside them the reporting notes the editor has cleared for review. Every gap is written as a question to the editor.
The editor then decides what happens: correct, investigate or leave as published. The capability makes none of that decision. It admits no error, promises no correction, reveals nothing from a protected source and offers no view on any legal question. The reader gets a courteous acknowledgement within the time your correction policy sets (if it sets one), once the audience lead has approved it.
Who starts the work, and when
An editor's assistant or a member of the audience team starts it the day a reader's message arrives that disputes a fact, questions a quotation or reports a missing or wrong credit. It runs once per message and once per published piece. The responsible editor reads the note. The audience lead approves the acknowledgement. The assistant or audience team member sends it only after that approval.
What they supply
- The reader's message, complete and unedited, with the date it arrived.
- The published version of the piece, with its date, byline and any later changes.
- Anything the reader attached or linked, pasted in as text or described by name.
- The reporting notes the editor is willing to show, each marked as cleared or withheld.
- The publication's correction policy and its approved wording for acknowledgements.
- Who the responsible editor and the audience lead are, and the acknowledgement time the policy sets.
What comes out
An internal note in a fixed order. It numbers each point the reader raised, quotes the published words that point refers to, lists the reader's evidence and the cleared notes, flags anything that needs another role, and ends with numbered questions for the editor. Below it sits a draft acknowledgement of up to about 120 words that confirms receipt, names what the reader raised without agreeing or disagreeing, and says the editor will review it. Sections with nothing to report say so.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Publication P is an invented regional digital magazine. The reader, the reporter, the editor, the audience lead, the article, the council, the minutes and every note below are invented. The magazine has a small audience team and an editor's assistant. First come the inputs the editor's assistant supplied, in full, then the note and draft the capability returned.
The inputs
READER MESSAGE
Channel: email to the corrections inbox. Reference CR-2026-041.
Received: Thursday 5 November 2026, 09:30.
From: Reader R
Subject: Wrong facts and wrong photo credit in your Old Pier Café story
Hello,
Your story "Old Pier Café to reopen after council backs new lease"
(Wednesday 28 October) says the council voted 7 to 2. It voted 6 to 3.
It also says the lease is for ten years. The minutes say five. I have
pasted the extract below and linked the minutes.
The photograph at the top of the story is mine. I took it on Wednesday
14 October and sent it to your submissions inbox. You credit it to
"staff". I have attached the original file, pier_cafe_2026-10-14.jpg.
I expect better from a local publication. Please correct the story today.
Reader R
Pasted extract (council minutes, Tuesday 27 October 2026, item 6):
"Old Pier Café lease. Motion carried: 6 for, 3 against. Term: five
years, with an option to renew for five years."
Link: https://example.org/council/minutes-2026-10-27
PUBLISHED VERSION
Publication P, Wednesday 28 October 2026, 07:00. Byline: Reporter M.
Editor: Editor E. No corrections or updates since publication.
Headline: Old Pier Café to reopen after council backs new lease
Paragraph 1: The Old Pier Café will reopen in the spring after the
council approved a new lease on Tuesday.
Paragraph 2: The café has been closed since March.
Paragraph 3: Councillors voted 7 to 2 to grant a ten-year lease, ending
a dispute that closed the café in March.
Paragraph 4: The owner said the café would hire six staff.
Photo caption: The Old Pier Café in October. Photo: Publication P staff
REPORTING NOTES (headers: Note ID | Date | Author | Topic | Content | Cleared)
N1 | Tuesday 27 October 2026 | Reporter M | Council vote | Called the
council clerk at 21:40 after the meeting. Clerk said the vote was
7 to 2. | yes
N2 | Tuesday 27 October 2026 | Reporter M | Lease term | Café owner said
the lease is for ten years. Lease document not seen. | yes
N3 | Tuesday 27 October 2026 | Reporter M | Council vote and lease |
[withheld by Reporter M] | no
N4 | Wednesday 28 October 2026 | Picture desk | Reader photo | File
pier_cafe_2026-10-14.jpg arrived through the submissions inbox on
Friday 23 October. Sender name not recorded. Published with the
credit "staff". | yes
CORRECTION POLICY (CP-3, dated 1 September 2026)
C1. Every reader request is acknowledged within two business days of
receipt. The audience lead approves the acknowledgement before it
goes.
C2. A disputed fact goes to the responsible editor, who decides whether
to correct, investigate or leave the piece as published, and records
the decision.
C3. A missing or wrong credit goes to the responsible editor, who checks
it against the production record.
C4. Only the responsible editor decides whether a correction is
published, and its wording.
C5. Protected-source material never leaves the reporting team.
C6. Sign off acknowledgements "Audience team, Publication P".
C7. An acknowledgement may say that the message has gone to the
responsible editor, that the editor will review it and decide, and
that the reader will be told the outcome. It gives no date for the
outcome and says nothing about what the decision will be.
SETTINGS
Responsible editor: Editor E. Audience lead: Audience lead L.
Sender: Assistant A (editor's assistant). Today: Thursday 5 November
2026. Closed days: none. Word limit for an acknowledgement: 120.
Roles for flagged matters: standards, Editor E; legal review, Managing
editor; privacy, Managing editor.
The output
READER CORRECTION REQUEST BRIEF: Publication P, "Old Pier Café to reopen after council backs new lease", CR-2026-041
Status: Internal note for Editor E; draft acknowledgement for Audience lead L to approve. Nothing sent, corrected or recorded.
Received: Thursday 5 November 2026, 09:30, by email to the corrections inbox, from Reader R. Piece: published Wednesday 28 October 2026, byline Reporter M, editor Editor E. Changes since publication: None recorded.
Acknowledgement due: Monday 9 November 2026 (C1).
Sources: policy CP-3, 1 September 2026; published version as supplied, 28 October 2026; 4 notes supplied.
WHAT THE READER SENT
1. Fact dispute: "says the council voted 7 to 2. It voted 6 to 3."
Published: Paragraph 3: "Councillors voted 7 to 2 to grant a ten-year lease".
Reader's evidence: E1, E2. Notes: N1; withheld: N3
2. Fact dispute: "It also says the lease is for ten years. The minutes say five."
Published: Paragraph 3: "a ten-year lease".
Reader's evidence: E1, E2. Notes: N2; withheld: N3
3. Credit report: "The photograph at the top of the story is mine. I took it on Wednesday 14 October ... You credit it to 'staff'."
Published: Found in different words: Photo caption: "Photo: Publication P staff"
Reader's evidence: E3. Notes: N4
4. Remark: "I expect better from a local publication."
Published: No passage.
Reader's evidence: None supplied. Notes: none on this point
5. Request about handling: "Please correct the story today."
Published: No passage.
Reader's evidence: None supplied. Notes: none on this point
EVIDENCE THE READER SUPPLIED
E1. Pasted extract from the council minutes of Tuesday 27 October 2026, item 6. Says: "Motion carried: 6 for, 3 against. Term: five years, with an option to renew for five years." Concerns: points 1, 2. Status: Read (text pasted by the reader; the original minutes not seen).
E2. Link to the council minutes (https://example.org/council/minutes-2026-10-27). Says: nothing available; the reader describes it as the minutes. Concerns: points 1, 2. Status: Not examined.
E3. Attached image file pier_cafe_2026-10-14.jpg. Says: the reader took it on Wednesday 14 October and sent it to the submissions inbox. Concerns: point 3. Status: Not examined.
WHAT THE NOTES RECORD
N1, Tuesday 27 October 2026, Reporter M, Council vote: records the council clerk saying by phone at 21:40 that the vote was 7 to 2. Bears on point 1. It differs from E1, which gives 6 for, 3 against.
N2, Tuesday 27 October 2026, Reporter M, Lease term: records the café owner saying the lease is for ten years, and that the lease document was not seen. Bears on point 2. It differs from E1, which gives five years with an option to renew for five.
N3, Tuesday 27 October 2026, Reporter M, Council vote and lease: content withheld. Bears on points 1, 2 by topic only.
N4, Wednesday 28 October 2026, Picture desk, Reader photo: records that a file named pier_cafe_2026-10-14.jpg arrived through the submissions inbox on Friday 23 October, that the sender name was not recorded, and that it was published with the credit "staff". Bears on point 3. The file name is the same as E3's.
FLAGS
None.
QUESTIONS FOR EDITOR E
Q1. Which source does the publication treat as the record of the vote and the lease term: the clerk and the owner (N1, N2) or the minutes (E1, E2)? Have the original minutes or the lease document been seen? Points 1, 2, sources N1, N2, E1, E2.
Q2. Does "ten-year" in paragraph 3 describe the term alone, or the term with the renewal option that E1 mentions? Point 2, sources E1, N2.
Q3. N3 is on the same topic as points 1 and 2 and its content was withheld. Does it bear on them? Points 1, 2, sources N3.
Q4. N4 and E3 have the same file name. Does the picture desk's record show who supplied the photograph, and what credit does the production record give? Point 3, sources N4, E3 (C3).
Q5. For each of points 1, 2 and 3, do you choose to correct, investigate or leave the piece as published, and who records the decision? Points 1 to 3, sources E1, E3, N1, N2, N4 (C2, C3, C4).
DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Subject: Your message about the Old Pier Café article
Hello Reader R,
Thank you for writing to us on Thursday 5 November. You raised the council vote count and the lease length in our article of Wednesday 28 October, and the credit on the photograph at the top. We have passed your message, with the minutes extract you included, to the editor responsible for the article. The editor will review what you sent and decide what happens next, and you will be told the outcome.
Audience team, Publication P
Length: 80 words against a limit of 120.
BEFORE SENDING
Approval: Audience lead L approves the wording before it is sent; Assistant A sends it.
Promises in this draft: the reader will be told the outcome, with no date, allowed by C7.
Left out, and why: whether the vote, the lease term or the credit is right (Editor E decides, C2, C3); any correction or its wording (C4); any date for the outcome (C7); notes N1 to N4 and what they record (a draft never mentions a note); a response to the remark in point 4 (nothing in CP-3 covers it); a promise to correct today (point 5; not allowed by CP-3).
Not covered by the policy: how to answer a remark about the quality of the publication; wording for acknowledgements (CP-3 sets what one may say and the sign-off, not the words).
Prepared for Editor E and Audience lead L. Nothing has been sent, published, corrected or recorded by the AI assistant.
Not completed, and what is needed: E2 and E3 were not examined; supply the minutes text and the image or the picture desk record if the editor wants them reviewed. Otherwise nothing outstanding.
Where it fits
- Customer support and service, where an incoming message must reach the right decision-maker with its evidence attached.
- Marketing and content, for any team that publishes articles, reports or newsletters under its name.
- Media and entertainment, for newsrooms, magazines and production companies whose audience writes back.
- Marketing and advertising, for agencies and brands that publish editorial content.
- Nonprofits, where reports, newsletters and campaign pages are read closely by members and the people they describe.
- Established businesses, which already have a correction policy and want every request handled the same way.
It is a different piece of work from customer reply drafting, which answers a customer from approved answers, and from complaint and refund request handling, which applies a refund policy. It prepares an editor's decision; it does not answer the reader's question.
What has to change for your company
Put your correction policy in writing, including who decides, how quickly a reader is acknowledged and what the acknowledgement may say. Name the responsible editor for each kind of piece and the audience lead who approves replies. Decide which reporting notes an assistant may see and how a note is marked as withheld. Set your closed days for counting business days. Decide who handles a request that mentions a lawyer, a regulator, a privacy claim or a request to remove a piece. Your organization keeps every decision on what is corrected and what is said in its name. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini from the text you supply, and it needs no connection to your publishing system.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 10 November 2026, and the record is published with it. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on past reader requests your editors have already settled, plus hard cases written in advance, each with its expected behavior: a claim that does not match the published words, a note marked as withheld, a message that mentions a lawyer, a credit claimed by someone you cannot identify. The responsible editor checks every quotation against the published piece before anyone relies on the note. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that test set.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this capability to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this capability template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: