Why a scorecard is not enough
A 22/25 can still ship something broken.
A scorecard measures quality. It does not stop a piece with a dead internal link, a missing meta description, or an undisclosed AI-generated section from going live, because none of those cost enough points to fail the score. Those are gate problems, not quality problems: binary, not graded, and easy to miss when you are busy scoring the prose.
The checklist below runs after the scorecard, right before delivery. It is not a second opinion on quality. It is the last chance to catch the specific, boring failures that a good score does not rule out.
The checklist
Ten checks, pass or fail
Run every check. Do not average them. A single failed check means the piece does not go out today, no matter how well it scored.
EDITORIAL QA CHECKLIST (pre-publish gate)
[ ] 1. Brief match confirmed - angle, required sections, and
target query all match the assignment as given
[ ] 2. Every specific claim traces to a source you can point
to in one click
[ ] 3. No invented stats, quotes, or case studies
[ ] 4. Reads like the client, not like a template
[ ] 5. Internal links present, with the assigned anchor text
[ ] 6. Headings and title match the search intent, no drift
[ ] 7. AI-use disclosure attached, if the writer used AI
[ ] 8. No dead links, broken formatting, or missing alt text
[ ] 9. Meta title and meta description present and on-brief
[ ] 10. Final read-through done by someone other than the
writer
RULE: any single "no" stops the piece today. Fix it, then
re-run the full ten, not just the one that failed.How to use it
Run it last, and run it every time
The editor runs it, not the writer. A checklist a writer self-certifies is a formality. The value is a second set of eyes confirming the piece is actually ready, not a writer's word that it is.
Run all ten every time, even on a trusted writer. The checks that get skipped "because this writer is always careful" are exactly the ones that eventually let something through. Ten checks take under two minutes; a published error takes a client email to catch.
One "no" is a full stop, not a note for later. The temptation is to ship and fix the meta description tomorrow. Tomorrow is when the client notices it first. Fix it now, then run the checklist again from the top.
Keep a record of which check fails most. A checklist that keeps catching the same failure is telling you where the brief or the writer onboarding has a gap. That pattern is worth more than any single catch.
When this stops being enough
A checklist catches one piece. It does not remember the pattern.
A pass/fail gate works well for one editor reviewing a manageable volume. It strains once more than one editor needs to run the same gate consistently, once you need to know which check fails most often across the whole roster, and once "we checked it" needs to be a logged fact instead of a claim.
At that point the checklist should live inside a tracker, so every gate run is a record tied to a piece, a writer, and a date, not a mental habit one editor carries around.
Two next steps
The free checklist, and the tracked version
The free Freelancer QA Checklist is the standalone version of this page: the same gate, formatted to print or pin next to your desk, no signup required.
The Freelancer Ops System ($49) is the version that remembers: the scorecard and this checklist both wired into a connected Notion workspace, so every gate run is logged against a submission, a writer, and a date, and repeat failures surface as a pattern instead of a feeling. It ships with example data pre-filled, includes free updates forever, and carries a 14-day fit guarantee.
Related resources
Before the gate, and after it
Score the draft first with the Content QA Scorecard Template; this checklist is the final pass/fail step that comes after. If a check fails, write the fix with the Revision Feedback Template so the writer knows exactly what to change.
FAQ
Common questions
What's the difference between this and the QA scorecard?
The scorecard grades quality on a scale: brief compliance, accuracy, SEO, tone, structure, each scored 0-5. This checklist does not grade anything; it checks ten specific, binary things and stops the piece if any one of them is a no. Use the scorecard to judge the writing, then this checklist to confirm the piece is actually safe to publish.
Who should run the checklist, the writer or the editor?
The editor, always. A writer can self-check as a courtesy pass before submitting, but the version that decides whether something ships needs a second person running it.
What happens when something fails a check?
It does not go out today. Fix the specific failure, then re-run all ten checks from the top rather than just re-checking the one that failed; a fix to one item occasionally breaks another (a corrected internal link with the wrong anchor text, for instance).
Does this replace proofreading tools like Grammarly?
No. Grammarly-style tools catch grammar and surface errors. This checklist catches the things software cannot judge: whether the brief was actually followed, whether claims are sourced, and whether AI use was disclosed. Run both; they cover different failure modes.