Step 1 · Brief
The question, in writing.
Four services, each delivered with its sources named.
Findings are only useful if they can be checked, so we hand back the source and the date for each one rather than a confident summary with nothing behind it. We also report what we could not find, because an absence is information too — and a researcher who quietly omits the gaps leaves a client more certain than the evidence warrants.
The question, in writing.
Sources identified and logged.
Cross-checked where possible.
Findings, sources and the gaps.
What is to be followed, and why.
Which sources, how often.
What may be circulated, agreed.
Summaries with references.
This is the service where the law bites. Reproducing articles in a monitoring report requires a licence from the rightsholders, which many in-house press reviews quietly do not hold. We deliver summaries, references and short citations, which copyright permits; if you hold a licence, tell us and we will work to its terms instead.
Most material arriving for editing is not badly written so much as written for the wrong reader, which is why we ask who will read it before touching a sentence. We will also say when a text needs rewriting rather than correcting, because editing a document whose structure is wrong wastes a budget and still produces something nobody finishes.
Who it is for, and what they need.
Fixed before the sentences.
Changes visible, not silent.
Final read before release.
What in it belongs to others.
Rights checked or substituted.
Laid out and proofed.
With the rights record.
Before a document goes out we check what is in it that belongs to somebody else: photographs, charts, quoted passages, maps. Clearing those is unglamorous and routinely skipped, and it is exactly what turns a finished publication into a problem months later. Where we cannot establish a right, we say so and propose a substitute.
A free first conversation to scope it, with no obligation.