Prepared with AI assistance and reviewed against our product and the sources below. Examples are illustrative, not customer results.
Choose the decision maker before you send the batch
A caption can attract six opinions and still have nobody responsible for saying yes. Before sending the first batch, agree who can make the final decision, who supplies facts, and who handles a missing reviewer. The purpose is a usable operating agreement, not a complicated organization chart.
For a small client, one person may perform several roles. That is fine. The important distinction is between providing input and authorizing the specific copy that will be published. A colleague saying “looks nice” should not accidentally become final approval.
Use four roles, with one named final approver
The writer prepares the batch and implements agreed changes. A factual reviewer checks a defined area such as availability or an event location. The final approver resolves conflicting comments and decides whether each current draft is ready. The publisher transfers cleared content into the publishing tool and checks that it still matches.
This is a lightweight responsibility worksheet inspired by role-mapping methods. It is an original practical template, not a requirement to adopt a formal management framework. Start with names rather than department labels: “marketing” cannot answer a reminder, but a named contact can.
- Writer: prepares complete drafts and flags unresolved information.
- Factual reviewer: checks named claims; does not silently approve the whole campaign.
- Final approver: provides the final decision on each current version.
- Publisher: checks and publishes only the cleared version.
- Backup: takes over only under an agreed trigger and within agreed authority.
Copy the responsibility worksheet
Fill this in together during onboarding. If a person has not agreed to the role, mark it unconfirmed. Keep the worksheet with your working brief; these roles are an operating agreement and are not automatically enforced by PostRoom.
Worksheet or example — select and copy
CLIENT / BATCH: WRITER: [name and contact] FACTUAL CHECKS: [topic → named reviewer] FINAL APPROVER: [one name and contact] PUBLISHER: [name] BACKUP APPROVER: [name, authority, contact] BACKUP TRIGGER: [absence confirmed / agreed response deadline missed] REVIEW CHANNEL: [where decisions are recorded] CONFLICT RULE: [final approver consolidates one instruction] NO DECISION BY DEADLINE: [hold affected drafts / agreed alternative] CHANGES AFTER APPROVAL: [new version requires another decision] AGREED BY / DATE: [names and date]
Fictional example: a neighborhood pottery studio
Imagine Willow Clay, a fictional pottery studio preparing six class announcements. Ana, the freelancer, writes and later publishes the captions. Ravi, the studio coordinator, verifies dates, prices and remaining places. Maya, the owner, is the final approver. Jules is the backup only when Maya confirms she is away. These are illustrative people and circumstances, not a customer case study.
Ravi notices that the Thursday session is full. His factual correction goes to Ana and Maya. Ana updates the draft; Maya reviews the updated version before Ana schedules it. Ravi’s correction was useful input, but it did not authorize a new promotional promise or decide the campaign direction.
If Maya is unavailable and the backup arrangement has not activated, Ana holds the affected caption. She does not interpret Ravi’s factual check or Maya’s silence as permission to publish.
Decide what happens when reviewers disagree
Suppose the sales contact asks for an urgent discount while the owner wants to protect the usual price. Do not ask the writer to infer which person outranks the other. Send the competing instructions to the agreed final approver, identify the affected drafts, and ask for one consolidated direction.
Ask the final approver to resolve the actual choice: “Should draft 04 include the discount, or should it keep the standard price?” Once the decision changes the copy, obtain approval on that revised copy. A general approval of the idea does not identify the final wording.
Keep the workflow and the access rules separate
A shared review link makes it easier to collect decisions, but it is not a role-permission system. PostRoom reviewers enter a self-reported name, and anyone with the link can review submitted posts. Share it only with the intended people and explain who should make the final decision.
Try the worksheet on one small batch. If several people keep overruling each other, fix the ownership agreement before adding more tools. When ownership is clear, a client approval room can give the writer and client a single place to see decisions on current drafts.