---
name: schedule-first-quarterly-audit-cycle
description: The first page review needs more than a date on a calendar.
category: Knowledge System Maintenance
stage: —
definitive_article: /knowledge-system-maintenance
status: gap
---

# Schedule first quarterly audit cycle

The first page review needs more than a date on a calendar. This guide sets the list, people, and checks for that first cycle. Start with the current pages and the place that will hold the results.

**The path:** Current register → Review assignments → Audit window → First-cycle closeout

**Start when:** The audit system needs its first agreed cycle, or an unfinished initial cycle must be resumed.

## Inputs

- The current article inventory/register with an audit-date field or a clear schema gap.
- [The assignment method](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=schedule-and-assign-quarterly-auditors#task-schedule-and-assign-quarterly-auditors) and available reviewers.
- An agreed initial window, timezone and authority for task/calendar changes.

## Steps

1. Inspect existing audit history and plans. If a cycle already exists, reconcile or resume it rather than calling this the first audit ever.
2. Confirm the register can retain date, reviewer, source revision, result and evidence. Use [the audit-date setup task](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=add-last-audited-column-to-definitive-article-guide-status-table#task-add-last-audited-column-to-definitive-article-guide-status-table) only if the field is missing; preserve real prior dates.
3. Assign every page in scope with the assignment method. Record exclusions and unresolved ownership instead of quietly reducing the denominator.
4. Agree a real first-cycle deadline and midpoint check. The source’s Q3 2026 target is historical context, not a perpetual deadline. Retain any missed original target beside the revised plan.
5. Equip reviewers with the four checks: topic, structure, currency and references. State that a complete audit needs evidence from all four; a failed page can still have a completed audit.
6. At close, reconcile pages reviewed, partially reviewed and not reviewed. Make fixes and their owners visible; scheduling an audit or filing a defect does not repair the page.
7. Capture real launch lessons and hand unfinished work into the next cycle without erasing the original commitment.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

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

- [ ] Inventory, register and named assignments are ready for the initial window.
- [ ] Actual four-check receipts determine audit coverage.
- [ ] First-cycle outcome and carried gaps retain honest dates and owners.

## Example(s)

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

A fictional first cycle covers five pages. Four have all checks; one lacks a source read. Of the four reviewed pages, two need repairs. Report 4/5 audits complete and 2 reviewed pages needing work. Do not equate audit completion with every page passing.

## 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.

Auditors use [Check whether the page stays on topic](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=check-topic-coherence-for-each-definitive-article#task-check-topic-coherence-for-each-definitive-article) through [Record the audit result](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide#task-update-status-table-in-definitive-article-guide). The cycle owner tracks repairs and the next quarter.

## 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=schedule-first-quarterly-audit-cycle#task-schedule-first-quarterly-audit-cycle)
- [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.