---
name: route-notes-to-sop-update-protocol-or-directly-to-articles
description: A saved lesson still needs to reach the right guide.
category: Knowledge System Maintenance
stage: —
definitive_article: /knowledge-system-maintenance
status: needs-work
---

# Route notes to task guide Update Protocol or directly to articles

A saved lesson still needs to reach the right guide. This task helps you choose whether to add proof or change the steps. Start with the note, its source, and the page that owns the subject.

**The path:** Saved lesson → Check source → Choose route → Record outcome

**Start when:** A saved lesson has been captured and still needs a verified destination and next owner.

## Inputs

- [Capture a lesson within 24 hours](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=generate-knowledge-capture-note-within-24-hours#task-generate-knowledge-capture-note-within-24-hours) output: source, insight, destination and priority.
- The current topic/page map, article editor and proposal queue.
- A routing owner, agreed review interval and existing authority for changes.

## Steps

1. Read the current unrouted-note list within the agreed scope. Check source access, note identity, duplicate versions and priority. Urgent work can be escalated through existing authority rather than waiting for a routine batch.
2. Check the insight against its evidence and confirm which maintained guide owns it. A capturer’s guessed destination is a starting point, not authority.
3. If it changes how work should be done, route to [Draft a process-change proposal](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=create-sop-amendment-proposal-500-words#task-create-sop-amendment-proposal-500-words). Keep at least two real examples for that formal proposal or mark the missing evidence; do not invent a second occurrence.
4. If it adds a fact or example without changing method, prepare an addition to the owning article with a relevance note and source. Use current writing/privacy standards and the supported publishing rail.
5. Record routed, awaiting evidence, proposed, saved draft or published accurately, with destination, owner and date. “Routed” does not mean the guide changed.
6. Check the receiver can find the note/proposal. Revisit parked notes at the agreed review point and escalate repeated blockage; do not silently abandon them or create duplicate notes to clear a queue.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

[Quality assurance (QA)](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/) means checking the work against the agreed result.

- [ ] Every in-scope note has a verified destination or a specific open question.
- [ ] Method and evidence additions take the correct review route.
- [ ] Source, owner, date and actual downstream state remain inspectable.

## Example(s)

**Fictional teaching example. This is not a client result or proof of a completed run.**

A fictional note says a report used the wrong week. It proposes a new date check, so it enters the process-change path. A second note provides a new approved customer example and goes to the relevant article draft. Neither note is marked published until the actual page is checked.

## Handoff and Content Factory context

This work supports the [Content Factory, our four stages of using real content](https://blitzmetrics.com/content-factory/): Produce → Process → Post → Promote. Use the specific inputs and next task below to place the work; a maintenance task does not manufacture transcripts, clips or other stage outputs it does not call for.

[Tag and queue the proposal](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=tag-proposal-with-affected-sop-and-queue-for-review#task-tag-proposal-with-affected-sop-and-queue-for-review) receives method changes; the owning article editor receives evidence additions and reports the actual saved/public result.

## Run with an agent

Give the AI worker this recipe, the real Inputs above, the intended result and the actions already authorized. Ask it to return the saved output, checks, evidence and remaining owner. Check its work against this guide; loading a skill does not prove access, installation of a job, or successful execution. Keep media muted with volume at zero if playback is needed.

For recurring work, keep the actual trigger, owner and runtime in the job record. Scheduling and observed firings are separate. Do not create a schedule merely because this guide mentions a review interval.

## Record the real execution

Open the run record when the work starts. Keep the exact starting recipe revision, one execution ID, source evidence and actual state. Write a [meta article, the record of one run](https://blitzmetrics.com/meta-article-prompt/) with decisions, results, checks, failures and next owner. Link it to this task and register it through the [Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/) execution process. Writing is part of the work; public release follows existing authority.

Reuse the same execution ID for revisions, QA, meta writing and retries within that run. A blocked run stays open with its dependency and next owner; do not invent a finish time. Use supported findings to propose and verify a better recipe. A historical public-example count without distinct run IDs remains dated article volume, not verified execution frequency.


<!-- factory-layer:start -->

## Factory chain (do not treat this as isolated)

- **Phase:** —
- **Importance:** 2/5 `●●○○○` — frequency 2, revenue 1, gating 2 (supporting)
- **Suggested previous station:** —
- **Suggested next station:** —
These stations are generated neighbors, not verified prerequisites or handoffs. Follow the task’s actual Inputs and Handoff sections.
- **Handoff:** Save this task’s actual output, source, date and checks where the receiving owner can read them. Follow the Inputs and Handoff sections for its next step.

## Model routing (same factory, any engine)

- **This task's lane:** `any` — Any capable chat model (Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini). SOP following, drafts, checklists.
- **Single-engine path:** Use the capable AI app you already have. Check its required tools and access before starting. Pass the actual result and proof to the next task.
- **Optional multi-engine:** A tested local model may draft; a stronger model may review facts and voice. Use supported tools for approved actions. Pick models from observed quality and cost; a model name does not prove it can run this task.
- **Never** store the working state in one vendor's memory. Files in the Content Library are the bridge.

<!-- factory-layer:end -->
## Definitive article & links

- [Maintained source guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/knowledge-system-maintenance/)
- [This task in the Task Library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=route-notes-to-sop-update-protocol-or-directly-to-articles#task-route-notes-to-sop-update-protocol-or-directly-to-articles)
- [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/)
- [current article guide](https://blitzmetrics.com/definitive-article-guide/)
- [How recipes and run records work together](https://localservicespotlight.com/meta-articles/)

## Review and evidence still needed

The inherited contributor status is `needs-work`. It is preserved, not promoted by this rewrite. That label alone does not verify document readiness, a client outcome, access or an executed task.

A real execution still needs its own source, reviewer, saved result and handoff evidence. The fictional example teaches the method; a real example with relevant proof is still needed where required. The task-specific flow above is source guidance; its visible presentation and the full document need a named reviewer and desktop/mobile checks.