Capability template for marketing and content
Story brief from the reporting file
Before a story is commissioned, the editor gets one brief from the reporting file: what the file confirms, what earlier coverage exists, what is still unanswered and a proposed structure, with every conflicting or unverified claim listed as a reporting gap.
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
The editor decides on a pitch with the whole file in view instead of the reporter's summary of it. Each claim the story would rest on appears once, with who said it, where it was recorded and how well the file supports it. The pitch's central assertions are each given a standing, so the editor sees at a glance which ones the file carries and which it does not.
Where two accounts disagree, where a claim comes from one person only or from someone anonymous, or where a document was requested and has not arrived, the brief lists it as a reporting gap in plain words. Earlier coverage is read from the index the desk supplies, so nobody commissions a story the publication has already run or one that contradicts what it ran last month.
Who starts the work, and when
The editor, or the desk coordinator on the editor's behalf, starts it when a pitch is on the table and a decision to commission or to draft is due. The reporter supplies the file and answers the questions the brief raises. The AI assistant prepares the brief. It verifies no fact, contacts no source, searches nothing and gives no view on legal exposure. The editor checks the evidence, chooses the angle and approves commissioning.
What they supply
- The pitch, in the editor's or reporter's words, with the decision it feeds and the date it is due.
- The publication profile: audience, format and length, and the rule the publication applies before it states something as fact.
- The reporting file: the reporter's notes, one statement per row, with source, source type and how it was obtained.
- The source documents the notes lean on, as text or pages.
- The prior coverage index: the publication's own earlier stories on the topic, and any others the desk has listed, each with a short summary.
What comes out
One brief in a fixed order: the pitch's central assertions and where each stands; the sources; every claim with its standing; the reporting gaps; prior coverage; unanswered questions; claims that name people or organisations; a proposed structure showing which sections can stand today and which wait on a gap; and the questions that remain about the brief itself. Empty sections say so. Nothing is sent and no record is changed.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The publication, the town, the council, the people, the documents and every figure are invented, and none describes a real place or event. The publication is a local weekly, the Tallowby Courier. Its section editor has a pitch on a new recycling depot and must decide by Friday 13 November 2026 whether to commission a 1,200-word feature. The news desk coordinator runs the capability on Tuesday 10 November 2026.
First come the request and the inputs, exactly as the coordinator pasted them. Then the brief that came back.
What the coordinator supplied
The request
Today is Tue 10 Nov 2026.
For: section editor, local news desk, the Tallowby Courier.
Prepared by: news desk coordinator.
Decision: commission a 1,200-word feature, due Fri 13 Nov 2026.
Pitch: "Tallowby's new recycling depot will open a year late and cost about
double its budget, and residents are paying for the overrun through the waste
levy."
Central assertions:
A1 The depot opens about a year late.
A2 The cost has about doubled.
A3 Residents are paying for the overrun through the household waste levy.
The publication profile
Audience: residents of Tallowby and the surrounding villages.
Format: local feature, 1,200 words.
Rule before a fact is stated in the paper's own voice: one primary document,
or two independent sources. An anonymous source needs the editor's approval
and one corroboration. A claim about a named person or organisation needs
their reply recorded, or an attempt to reach them logged.
The reporting file
Ref | Date | Source | Source type | How obtained | Statement | Document and page
N1 | 2 Nov | Council budget paper, capital programme | primary document | public council papers | Depot approved at a budget of £4.2m, with completion programmed for autumn 2026 | D1 p.14
N2 | 3 Nov | Officer A, council | named on record | phone interview, 3 Nov | The depot is now expected to open in autumn 2027. The current cost forecast is £7.9m. | none
N3 | 4 Nov | Source B, contractor employee | anonymous | phone call, 4 Nov | Work on the site stopped for six weeks in the summer after the ground tests failed. The cost is nearer £9m. | none
N4 | 5 Nov | Councillor C | named on record | email, 5 Nov | The household waste levy rose from £18 to £27 a year to cover the depot. | none
N5 | 5 Nov | Council finance report, September 2026 | primary document | public council papers | Household waste levy for 2026-27: £22 per household | D2 p.3
N6 | 6 Nov | Chair E, residents' group | named on record | interview, 6 Nov | The council never told residents the depot was running late. | none
N7 | 6 Nov | Officer A, council | named on record | phone interview, 6 Nov | The ground-test problem was not the contractor's fault. | none
N8 | 7 Nov | Reporter | reporter's note | n/a | Records request for the council's revised programme sent 7 Nov. Nothing received yet. | none
The source documents
D1 p.14: "Recycling depot. Approved budget £4.2m. Practical completion
programmed for autumn 2026."
D2 p.3: "Household waste levy 2026-27: £22 per household."
The prior coverage index
Ref | Date | Headline | Outlet | Link or id | Summary
P1 | 14 Mar 2025 | Council approves £4.2m depot | Tallowby Courier | CT-2025-0314 | Reports the council's approval of the depot at £4.2m, with opening in autumn 2026.
P2 | 9 Jun 2026 | Depot work paused, council says brief | Tallowby Courier | CT-2026-0609 | Reports a council statement that work was paused for a short survey. No dates given.
P3 | 21 Sep 2026 | Levy to rise next year, council papers show | Tallowby Courier | CT-2026-0921 | Reports a household waste levy of £22 this year and a rise proposed for 2027-28. The proposed amount is not in this summary.
P4 | 2 Oct 2025 | Neighbouring district's recycling rates | Pellwick Gazette | PG-2025-1002 | Compares recycling rates across three districts.
The brief that came back
STORY BRIEF: Tallowby recycling depot, delay and cost
For: Section editor, local news desk, for the decision on commissioning a 1,200-word feature, by Fri 13 Nov 2026. Prepared by: news desk coordinator, Tue 10 Nov 2026.
Pitch: "Tallowby's new recycling depot will open a year late and cost about double its budget, and residents are paying for the overrun through the waste levy."
Rule used: the publication's rule as supplied. One primary document, or two independent sources. An anonymous source needs the editor's approval and one corroboration. A claim about a named person or organisation needs their reply recorded, or an attempt to reach them logged.
The file: 8 notes from 6 sources, read as 11 claims. Prior coverage: 4 index entries, 3 used.
Standing of the claims: Confirmed in the file 2. Single-source 4. Unverified 1. Conflicting 4.
THE PITCH'S CENTRAL ASSERTIONS
A1. The depot opens about a year late: not confirmed. Rests on C2 (Confirmed in the file) and C3 (Single-source). The dates are seasons, so there is no "Worked out" line.
A2. The cost has about doubled: conflicting. Rests on C1 (Confirmed in the file), C4 and C6 (Conflicting). Worked out from C1, C4: 7.9 divided by 4.2 is 1.9 times. Worked out from C1, C6: 9 divided by 4.2 is 2.1 times.
A3. Residents are paying for the overrun through the household waste levy: conflicting. Rests on C7 and C9 (Conflicting) and C8 (Single-source). No claim in the file ties the levy to the overrun, as distinct from the depot.
SOURCES
S1. Council budget paper, capital programme (D1 p.14): primary document; public council papers.
S2. Officer A, council: named on record; phone interviews, 3 Nov and 6 Nov.
S3. Source B, contractor employee: anonymous; phone call, 4 Nov.
S4. Councillor C: named on record; email, 5 Nov.
S5. Council finance report, September 2026 (D2 p.3): primary document; public council papers.
S6. Chair E, residents' group: named on record; interview, 6 Nov.
CLAIMS
C1. "Depot approved at a budget of £4.2m". S1, N1, D1 p.14. Confirmed in the file.
C2. "with completion programmed for autumn 2026". S1, N1, D1 p.14. Confirmed in the file.
C3. "The depot is now expected to open in autumn 2027." S2, N2. Single-source.
C4. "The current cost forecast is £7.9m." S2, N2. Conflicting. Conflicts with C6.
C5. "Work on the site stopped for six weeks in the summer after the ground tests failed." S3, N3. Unverified.
C6. "The cost is nearer £9m." S3, N3. Conflicting. Conflicts with C4.
C7. "The household waste levy rose from £18 to £27 a year" S4, N4. Conflicting. Conflicts with C9.
C8. "to cover the depot." S4, N4. Single-source.
C9. "Household waste levy for 2026-27: £22 per household" S5, N5, D2 p.3. Conflicting. Conflicts with C7.
C10. "The council never told residents the depot was running late." S6, N6. Single-source.
C11. "The ground-test problem was not the contractor's fault." S2, N7. Single-source.
Not a claim: N8, the reporter's note of a records request sent 7 Nov with nothing received. It is read under G3.
REPORTING GAPS: 8
G1. Conflict: C4, C6. The file gives £7.9m (Officer A) and nearer £9m (Source B) for the cost. Source B is anonymous and the file records neither the editor's approval nor a corroboration for the £9m. Which forecast is current, how is each made up, does either include the six-week stoppage, and has the editor approved the use of Source B?
G2. Conflict: C7, C9. The file gives £27 (Councillor C, no year stated) and £22 for 2026-27 (the council finance report). Which year does Councillor C's £27 refer to, and does a document in the file show the levy for that year?
G3. Primary source unavailable: C3. The reporter's note records a request, sent 7 Nov, for the council's revised programme, and nothing received. Has the council replied, and does the programme give the new opening date?
G4. Unverified: C5. Source B is anonymous and the file records neither the editor's approval nor a corroboration. Has the editor approved the use of Source B, and is there a second source or a document for the six-week stoppage?
G5. Single-source: C3. Only Officer A, who is not a primary document, gives the autumn 2027 opening. What other source or document can the reporter point to for the new opening date?
G6. Single-source: C8. Only Councillor C says the levy rose to cover the depot. What document or second source shows what the levy rise was for?
G7. Single-source: C10. Only Chair E says residents were not told. What has the council said in reply to Chair E's statement, and is an attempt to reach it logged?
G8. Single-source: C11. Only Officer A says the ground-test problem was not the contractor's fault. What is the contractor's account of the ground-test problem?
PRIOR COVERAGE (from the index supplied only)
P1. "Council approves £4.2m depot", Tallowby Courier, 14 Mar 2025: agrees with C1 (approval at £4.2m); touches C2 (the summary gives opening in autumn 2026, where C2 gives completion programmed for autumn 2026).
P2. "Depot work paused, council says brief", Tallowby Courier, 9 Jun 2026: touches the same ground as C5 without settling it. It reports a council statement that work was paused for a short survey, with no dates, so it neither supports nor contradicts the six weeks, and it gives a survey where C5 gives failed ground tests. It also touches C10 without settling it.
P3. "Levy to rise next year, council papers show", Tallowby Courier, 21 Sep 2026: agrees with C9 (£22 this year). It adds a date, a rise proposed for 2027-28, but the proposed amount is not in the summary, so it cannot be compared with C7's £27.
Not used: P4, Pellwick Gazette, 2 Oct 2025: compares recycling rates across three districts and does not bear on the depot.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: 6
Q1. When: when the depot will open. No confirmed claim answers; C2 gives only the programmed date. Officer A, council, has given a date (C3).
Q2. How much: what the depot now costs and the size of the overrun. No confirmed claim answers; C4 and C6 conflict. Officer A, council, has given a forecast (C4). The file names no on-record contact at the contractor.
Q3. Why: why the work was late and the cost rose. No confirmed claim answers. Officer A, council, has spoken to the ground-test problem (C11).
Q4. Who is affected: what residents pay and whether the levy rise relates to the overrun. No confirmed claim answers; C7 and C9 conflict and no claim mentions the overrun. Councillor C has spoken to the levy (C7, C8).
Q5. Who is responsible: who is responsible for the delay and the overrun. No confirmed claim answers. Officer A, council, has spoken to the contractor's part (C11).
Q6. What each party says: the contractor's account, and the council's reply to C10. No claim records either.
CLAIMS ABOUT NAMED PEOPLE OR ORGANISATIONS
C10: the council is said to have failed to tell residents the depot was running late. The file records no reply from the council and no logged attempt to reach it. Officer A was interviewed on 6 Nov, but no reply to C10 is recorded.
C11: Officer A is quoted as saying the ground-test problem was not the contractor's fault; the contractor, identified by role, is the subject. The file records no reply from the contractor and no logged attempt to reach it.
Whether any of these goes to the publication's standards process is the section editor's decision.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE (for the pitch as stated; 1,200-word local feature)
1. What was approved: the budget and the programmed opening. Rests on C1, C2, P1. Can stand on confirmed claims today.
2. The delay: the new expected opening and the stoppage. Rests on C2, C3, C5, P2. Waits on G3, G4, G5.
3. The cost: the forecast against the budget. Rests on C1, C4, C6. Waits on G1.
4. The levy: what residents pay and what for. Rests on C7, C8, C9, P3. Waits on G2, G6.
5. Why it happened and who is responsible: the ground tests and the contractor. Rests on C5, C11, P2. Waits on G4, G8.
6. What residents were told: the council's communication to residents, as Chair E describes it. Rests on C10, P2. Waits on G7.
TO SETTLE: 7
1. C7 gives no year for the rise from £18 to £27. I compared it with C9 as if both state the current levy, and marked them Conflicting. If C7 refers to another year, the conflict falls away. Which year does it mean?
2. A3 says residents pay for the overrun. No claim says the levy rise is for the overrun; C8 says "to cover the depot". Is A3 meant to cover the original cost or the overrun?
3. The rule used needs the editor's approval and one corroboration for an anonymous source. The file records neither for Source B (C5, C6).
4. C2 and C3 give seasons, not dates, so I made no "Worked out" line for A1. Is autumn 2026 to autumn 2027 what "about a year" means?
5. N8 does not say which claims the revised programme would settle. I tied it to C3 only (G3); it may also bear on C4 and C6. Which claims was it meant to settle?
6. C7 and C8 say the levy rose and why, but not who raised it, so I did not list them as claims about a party's conduct. The file implies the council. Should they be listed?
7. The rule used needs a reply recorded or an attempt logged for a claim about a named person or organisation. The file shows neither for C10 or C11.
Nothing here has been verified, and nobody has been contacted. The section editor checks the evidence, chooses the angle and decides on commissioning.
Where it fits
- Media and entertainment, for newsrooms, magazines and independent outlets that decide commissioning from a reporting file.
- Marketing and content, which owns editorial planning and the standards content is held to.
- Growth & scaling, when more pitches arrive than one editor can read in full.
- Startups & new ventures, for a small outlet where one person is reporter, editor and fact-checker in turn.
It is a separate piece of work from Research summary brief, which reads published documents to answer a question, and from Customer interview synthesis, which draws themes from customer interviews. Content plan ranks what a marketing team writes next from buyers' questions; this one tests whether one editorial pitch has the evidence behind it.
What has to change for your company
Set the rule your publication applies before something is stated as fact, and the way it treats anonymous and background sources. Agree your own labels for source types and keep the reporting file in the column order the template expects. Say how many central assertions a pitch may carry, how long a brief may run and who receives it. Decide what a prior coverage index must hold and who keeps it current. Add the places your standards process needs a name beside a claim, and who is told when one appears.
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; the published record is of a second run, made by the assistant that had revised the template after an independent review, so it is not an independent run. It has not yet been tested in a client environment or as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on past pitches your editors already know, with cases written in advance: two sources that disagree, a document that never arrived, a claim from one anonymous person. The editor checks every line of the brief against the file before anyone relies on it.
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: