Operations
Part of Operating creative advertising software without losing control of the source material
The pre-launch checks every advertising variant should pass, from source identity to recovery
Check every advertising variant for source identity, claim evidence, rights, layout, destination, approval, release control and recovery before launch.
Run this preflight against the exact file or assembled advert that will be released. Put the asset ID, version, placement and reviewer at the top. A tick without a recorded specimen proves little.
What to take away
- Run the preflight against the exact file or assembled advert that will be released, not a draft.
- Keep the asset ID, version, placement and reviewer at the top of the record.
- Stop and correct the source or template if the team cannot reconstruct how the output was assembled.
- Check the overall impression, not only isolated sentences, because the CAP Code covers misleading advertising.
- Mark each item pass, blocked or withdrawn, and keep the first result rather than erasing it.
Identity and source
- The version ID matches the approval record.
- The placement, audience and scheduled period match the job brief.
- Every variable came from the authorised feed or copy source.
- Generated material is labelled in the working record where the organisation requires it.
- Rejected variants cannot appear in the release library.
Stop if the team cannot reconstruct how the output was assembled. Correct the source or template before touching individual variants; otherwise the same defect may remain elsewhere.
Identity and source checks
- Version ID matches approval record
- Placement, audience, period match brief
- Variables from authorised feed or copy source
- Generated material labelled in working record
- Rejected variants excluded from release library
Claims and offer
- Objective statements have dated documentary support.
- Qualifications are readable and close enough to the claim they limit.
- Prices, dates, eligibility and availability agree with the approved offer.
- Comparative language uses the approved basis and signpost.
- The overall impression has been reviewed, not only isolated sentences.
The CAP Code section on misleading advertising includes rules on substantiation, qualifications, prices, availability, comparisons and testimonials. That is section 3 of the CAP Code, headed Misleading advertising. Its scope depends on the communication and medium. A qualified reviewer should decide which current rules apply.
For claims, that reviewer is a named person with clearance authority and current training in the applicable code, not a maker of the variant under review.
Claims and offer checks
- Objective statements have dated documentary support
- Qualifications readable and close to claim
- Prices, dates, eligibility agree with approved offer
- Comparative language uses approved basis and signpost
- Overall impression reviewed, not isolated sentences
Rights and permissions
- The image, font, music, copy and logo licences cover the intended use.
- Territory, media, duration and alteration limits have been checked.
- Creator, employee or agency ownership is supported by the relevant agreement.
- Any required credit is present and accurate.
- The archive retains the licence and its source URL.
The Intellectual Property Office explains in its copyright ownership guidance that initial ownership, employment, commissioning, licensing and written assignment can affect the answer. The page supplies general UK information, not a decision about a particular asset.
Data and account safety
- The job uses only approved personal or confidential information.
- Review links and downloads reach named recipients, not an unrestricted audience.
- External makers have the minimum workspace access their task needs.
- Temporary users and service accounts have removal dates and owners.
- The release record contains no secret, credential or unnecessary identifier.
If the output or workflow uses personal data, send the actual flow to a privacy reviewer. The ICO's data protection principles guide covers Article 5(1)(b) purpose limitation, 5(1)(c) data minimisation, 5(1)(d) accuracy, 5(1)(e) storage limitation and 5(1)(f) integrity and confidentiality, but parts are under review after statutory change.
For privacy, the qualified reviewer is a data protection officer or a named person with privacy training and authority to sign off the flow.
Layout and destination
- Text, marks and mandatory wording remain visible at the delivery size.
- Crops preserve the intended subject and do not change the claim's meaning.
- Contrast, captions and motion treatment meet the organisation's approved requirements.
- The destination loads, matches the offer and preserves necessary information.
- Every permitted asset combination makes sense on its own.
Check on representative devices and in the real placement preview where access allows. Screenshots are evidence of that rendering only, not every delivery condition.
Approval and release
- Makers did not approve their own high-risk work.
- Claim, rights, privacy, brand and technical decisions name a reviewer and date.
- Conditional approvals have been resolved rather than carried into release.
- The publisher can identify the authorised version without searching messages.
- Withdrawal and correction routes have been rehearsed.
GOV.UK's quality-assurance page advises public teams to involve the whole team and test normal and unusual conditions. Apply that method proportionately, without claiming the government standard certifies private advertising work.
Record the outcome
Mark the item pass, blocked or withdrawn. A blocked entry needs a defect owner, due time and fresh review after correction. Do not erase the first result. The history should show what failed, what changed and who authorised the final specimen.
Sample completed records each month or at a cadence chosen from risk. Check that reviewers examined the promised artefact rather than copying a previous tick. Repeated defects should open a template or process correction, not another reminder to be careful.
An illustrative completed record, with the job record supplying each value:
| Asset ID | Version | Placement | Reviewer | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD-0001-03 | v2 | Paid social, England, 14-day flight | copy clearance lead, named | Pass |
| AD-0001-04 | v1 | Search text, England, 30-day flight | copy clearance lead, named | Blocked: price mismatch |
Before you act
Copy this block into the job record or print it for the review meeting. The tier shows how a failed check should be handled before release.
Check / Tier
- Asset ID, version, placement and reviewer recorded at the top
- Blocker
- Every variable traced to the authorised feed or copy source
- Blocker
- Claim support and offer details match the approved record
- Blocker
- Licences cover territory, media, duration and alteration
- High
- Actual data flow reviewed where personal data is used
- Blocker
- Withdrawal and correction routes rehearsed
- High
- Layout survives the delivery size and placement
- Standard
Common questions
What should a team do if it cannot reconstruct how the output was assembled?
Stop and correct the source or template before touching individual variants. Otherwise the same defect may remain elsewhere in the release. The working record must show how the output was built.
Which rules does the CAP Code section on misleading advertising cover?
It includes rules on substantiation, qualifications, prices, availability, comparisons and testimonials. Its scope depends on the communication and medium, so a qualified reviewer should decide which current rules apply to the advert being checked.
What does a blocked entry in the release record need?
A blocked entry needs a defect owner, a due time and a fresh review after correction. The first result should not be erased. The history should show what failed, what changed and who authorised the final specimen.
