Solution Database / PR and Communications
Communications consistency checker
Public materials contradict approved company facts. Finds factual inconsistencies across channels against a controlled company record.
01The offer
For brand governance teams at multi-location organizations, turn owned websites, approved fact sheets and announcements into communications inconsistency report. Address the recurring problem: public materials contradict approved company facts. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Brand governance teams at multi-location organizations
- Takes in
- Owned websites, approved fact sheets and announcements
- Delivers
- Communications inconsistency report
- Message
- Communications consistency checker for brand governance teams at multi-location organizations. Finds factual inconsistencies across channels against a controlled company record. Demonstrate the claim through a company-fact consistency audit.
- Lead magnet
- A company-fact consistency audit
02How it works
- Extract repeated claims
- Compare dates and numbers
- Identify outdated bios
- Distinguish audience variations
- Link source evidence
- Track fixes
Workflow
Agree review criteria, ingest a sample, generate candidate findings, inspect supporting evidence, let reviewers confirm or dismiss each item, assign corrections, and recheck the affected material. Start with owned websites, approved fact sheets and announcements and finish with communications inconsistency report.
AI and people
Propose possible inconsistencies, omissions and rubric matches. Combine extraction with deterministic checks where rules are explicit. Reviewers make the final judgment. Keep false positives and missed cases visible during evaluation.
Screens
Key screens: Claim inventory, contradictions, correction queue. Open on a review queue ordered by reviewer-selected priorities. Show each finding beside the original evidence and applicable rule. Provide accept, dismiss and needs-information controls with reasons. A separate report view summarizes confirmed findings and unresolved items, not raw AI flags. In this product, the first view is claim inventory, followed by contradictions and correction queue.
Admin
Versioned review criteria, evidence links, reviewer decisions, disagreement handling, correction assignments, recheck status and exportable review history.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Manual reviewers, checklists, generic scanning tools and specialist audit services. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: finds factual inconsistencies across channels against a controlled company record. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
A domain-specific review rubric and rights-cleared examples of confirmed defects, false alarms and reviewer reasoning. For this solution, build around finds factual inconsistencies across channels against a controlled company record. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
PR and Communications teams are adopting AI for exactly this kind of repeatable work, and the cost of language and vision models has dropped far enough that a narrow, reviewed workflow pays back quickly. The buyer already feels the problem: public materials contradict approved company facts.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Brand governance consultants. Metrics that prove it works: Confirmed contradictions, correction completion.
Paid pilot
Have a qualified reviewer independently assess the same sample. Compare confirmed findings, false alarms and omissions. Repeat on unseen material before agreeing recurring volume. For this solution, use owned websites, approved fact sheets and announcements and evaluate communications inconsistency report. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for confirmed contradictions, correction completion. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
06Execution plan
MVP
Begin with brand governance teams at multi-location organizations and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: extract repeated claims; compare dates and numbers. Provide operator assistance for the third module: identify outdated bios. Deliver communications inconsistency report through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: brand governance teams at multi-location organizations. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a company-fact consistency audit. Week 3: present it through brand governance consultants and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review confirmed contradictions, correction completion, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: distinguish audience variations; link source evidence; track fixes. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
Retention
Offer recurring reviews and rechecks of previously confirmed issues. Expand document or case types after validating the new rubric with qualified reviewers.
Integrations
Approved company facts, permitted media sources and publication workflows. Source repositories, task trackers and report exports. Keep findings as review proposals until authorized owners accept the resulting actions. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: extract repeated claims; compare dates and numbers. Manual review in the loop. | 3 days | $7,000 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 4 days | $7,500 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: distinguish audience variations; link source evidence; track fixes. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 8 days | $10,000 |
| Total | $24,500 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $30–$60 | $80–$160 | $110–$220 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $110–$210 | $880–$1,750 | $990–$1,960 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 500-2,000 for a defined audit sample and report. Offer recurring review priced by reviewed items and specialist hours. Software-only access can follow a reliable reviewed service. All prices require validation.
Cost drivers
Document or media processing, model evaluation, expert review, false-positive handling, rechecks and customer-specific rubric calibration.
Safeguards
Verify public facts and quotations. Keep publication authority explicit and preserve the original context behind media and reputation findings. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.
Take it further
Concept proposal expanded from the 315-solution conversation. Demand, pricing, differentiation, build scope and integration feasibility are hypotheses, not verified market findings. Category link is inspiration rather than evidence of business viability.