---
name: review-existing-sops-for-portability-compliance
description: Your team should keep its know-how when an app changes.
category: Knowledge System Maintenance
stage: —
definitive_article: /knowledge-system-maintenance
status: needs-work
---

# Review existing task guides for portability compliance

Your team should keep its know-how when an app changes. This guide finds task guides that mix the method with tool buttons. Start with the guides people use now and the checked pilot example.

**The path:** Guide inventory → Layer review → Graded gaps → Change queue

**Start when:** The pilot is ready to apply to an agreed inventory of existing task guides.

## Inputs

- An agreed inventory of current task guides and source owners.
- [The article-guidelines pilot](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) and [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).
- Read access and the approved review/changes register.

## Steps

1. Build the in-scope list from current operating references, not only search results. Record source revision, owner, use and any inaccessible guide.
2. For each, classify decisions/checks and tool-specific instructions. In a review copy, hide the implementation and inspect where the method becomes unclear.
3. Grade compliant, mixed or entangled with cited passages. Use unknown for an unreadable or insufficiently reviewed source; a label alone is not evidence.
4. Prepare narrow layering changes for mixed guides. Queue a larger rewrite for an entangled guide, explaining which inputs, decisions or checks would otherwise be lost.
5. Prioritize from actual use, known upcoming tool changes and demonstrated failures. Do not assume every ad or editor guide is more urgent than a blocked client task.
6. Route exact proposals through the existing amendment process. Record reviewed revisions and next owners; recheck released changes and propose a portability check for new guides if it is missing.

## Definition of done (QA checklist)

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

- [ ] Every guide in scope has evidence-backed classification or explicit unknown.
- [ ] Restructures preserve runnable detail and have owned next actions.
- [ ] Reviewed dates and any released revisions are recorded; no auto-certification occurs.

## Example(s)

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

A fictional list has ten guides: six separate method/tool steps, three mix them, and one cannot be opened. Report 6 compliant, 3 mixed, 1 unknown. The unreadable guide is not counted as entangled or passed. A promised restructure is not a completed rewrite.

## 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.

[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) handles restructures; [review the run records](https://local-service-spotlight.github.io/task-library/?task=apply-portability-discipline-to-meta-articles#task-apply-portability-discipline-to-meta-articles) applies the same method to examples.

## 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=review-existing-sops-for-portability-compliance#task-review-existing-sops-for-portability-compliance)
- [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.