---
name: conduct-first-portability-review-of-blog-posting-guidelines
description: Good writing steps should still help when your team changes apps.
category: Knowledge System Maintenance
stage: —
definitive_article: /knowledge-system-maintenance
status: gap
---

# Conduct first portability review of Blog Posting Guidelines

Good writing steps should still help when your team changes apps. This guide tests that idea on the article rules you use now. Start with the live guide and keep its useful tool details.

**The path:** Current guide → Classify steps → Review copy → Pilot handoff

**Start when:** The team is piloting method/tool separation on the maintained Article Guidelines.

## Inputs

- [Article Guidelines](https://localservicespotlight.com/article-guidelines/) at its current canonical URL, with source revision and existing media.
- [Separate the method from tool steps](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=separate-methodology-layer-what-why-from-implementation-layer-how#task-separate-methodology-layer-what-why-from-implementation-layer-how) and a reviewer who can judge the full writing/publishing workflow.
- Source editing authority and an amendment queue; any former seventeen-step outline is historical until checked.

## Steps

1. Fetch the current guide and list its actual headings and steps. Follow the maintained canonical destination instead of assuming the old Blog Posting Guidelines URL or a fixed 1–17 sequence.
2. Classify each instruction as purpose/decision/check or current tool implementation. Mark mixed sentences for separation; retain all original examples, links and media in a review copy.
3. Put the transferable instruction first, then label the actual app controls, versions and screenshots beneath it. Keep concrete tool steps so today’s user can still perform the task.
4. Hide tool blocks in a test copy. Confirm a competent reader can explain source intake, editing, checks and handoff. This tests the method’s clarity; it does not prove another platform can publish the same page.
5. Prepare the exact restructure through [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). After approval, save through the guide’s owning source/editor and compare preserved media, links and body meaning.
6. Record hard classification decisions, tested revisions and unresolved tool dependencies as the pilot example. Capture any reusable lesson within 24 hours.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

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

- [ ] Every current instruction is classified; no old step count is treated as current evidence.
- [ ] Method and tool detail remain usable, with original proof/media retained.
- [ ] Pilot review and any authorized release have exact source/readback receipts.

## Example(s)

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

A fictional step says “Open Tool A and fix the words highlighted in blue.” The pilot splits it into “Check the transcript against the speaker’s words” and a dated Tool A control note. A reviewer spots that speaker names also need checking. That missing method check is proposed explicitly rather than buried in the screenshot.

## 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.

[Review the rest of the guide library](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=review-existing-sops-for-portability-compliance#task-review-existing-sops-for-portability-compliance) receives the pilot pattern and unresolved dependencies.

## 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=conduct-first-portability-review-of-blog-posting-guidelines#task-conduct-first-portability-review-of-blog-posting-guidelines)
- [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 `gap`. 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.