Track policy-driven content drift

Why use this

1. A policy revision can leave older web pages, help articles and campaign materials saying something different. Searching only for the policy's new wording can miss indirect promises, while broad keyword matching can flag pages whose context remains correct.

2. A content-drift review queue could connect candidate passages to the changed policy provision and explain the suspected mismatch. Content owners could prioritize corrections without treating every automated match as a required legal change or silently rewriting published guidance.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Recognize paraphrased policy-dependent claims and distinguish substantive conflicts from harmless references.

Simpler alternative

Use a maintained content inventory and keyword search when policy wording appears consistently in a small set of pages.

Unsuitable when

The task expects legal interpretation or automatic publication without an accountable policy and content owner.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Policy-change packet

   Owner

   Policy owner

   Minimum scope

   Approved old and new passages, effective context and change explanation

   Quality check

   Mark drafts and unresolved applicability questions.

2. Name

   Content inventory sample

   Owner

   Content owner

   Minimum scope

   Selected page excerpts, URLs, versions and responsible teams

   Quality check

   Identify archived or audience-restricted content.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read-only policy and content excerpts with a private ticket-preview list.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, content discovery coverage, ticket integration and recurring-check behavior.

External actions requiring approval

1. Creating or assigning shared tickets, changing published content and notifying external recipients.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Candidate correction tickets with exact passage, policy reference, owner question and proposed review priority.

Critical checks

1. Each ticket explains the potential conflict rather than only citing a keyword.

2. Policy applicability and final replacement wording remain subject to owner review.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   An archived page is assigned the same urgency as active guidance.

   Why it matters

   The queue may distract reviewers from material current exposure.

   Proposed response

   Label publication status and ask the owner to apply the appropriate review policy.

2. Signal

   A proposed correction changes a claim beyond the policy revision.

   Why it matters

   The ticket can introduce an unsupported new promise.

   Proposed response

   Narrow the suggestion to the cited conflict and request separate review for additional changes.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Map policy topics to content owners and page states.

Ongoing review

1. Resolve false matches and verify approved corrections.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: discovery coverage, ticket volume and legal or editorial review effort.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Three fictional pages include an active conflicting promise, an archived reference and an unrelated keyword match.

Acceptance checks

1. Explain the active conflict.

2. Distinguish archive status and reject the irrelevant match.

Stop conditions

1. Real policy advice, website scanning, ticket creation or publication is required.

Limits

1. This proposed drift queue supplies review candidates, not legal conclusions or evidence that any content was corrected.