# Content Quality Definition

Turn broad expectations such as useful, accurate, clear, accessible, and maintainable into observable standards editors can apply consistently.

## Usage note

Define quality for a named content program and reader situation. Do not turn the worksheet into one universal numeric score or use surface features as a substitute for usefulness. Some dimensions are non-negotiable gates, while others support editorial judgment. Calibrate the standard with real examples and revise it when evidence shows that readers are still failing.

## How to use this template

1. Choose a specific content type and describe the reader task, context, and consequence of failure.
2. Select quality dimensions that matter to that situation and state why each is necessary.
3. Write observable acceptance evidence, blocking conditions, and examples for every dimension.
4. Calibrate the draft with several real pieces and independent reviewers, then clarify areas of disagreement.
5. Approve the definition, connect it to briefs and reviews, and monitor outcomes that can reveal a weak standard.

## Blank template

### Quality context

- **Program or content type:** [Name the scope]
- **Primary reader:** [Audience and prior knowledge]
- **Reader task:** [Decision or action supported]
- **Failure consequence:** [What happens if content fails?]
- **Quality owner:** [Accountable role]
- **Required standards:** [Policy, accessibility, evidence, privacy, or legal links]
- **Review date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Dimension definition

- **Dimension:** [Usefulness, accuracy, clarity, accessibility, originality, maintainability, or another]
- **Why it matters:** [Reader or organizational need]
- **Observable evidence:** [What a reviewer can inspect]
- **Meets standard:** [Describe acceptable performance]
- **Needs revision:** [Describe the boundary]
- **Blocking failure:** [State whether one exists]
- **Example:** [Link or write a short illustrative case]
- **Reviewer:** [Role qualified to decide]

### Publication gates

- [ ] The page supports the named reader task and does not misstate its scope.
- [ ] Consequential claims have current, relevant evidence.
- [ ] Essential meaning and actions are accessible in the target formats.
- [ ] Personal, confidential, and restricted information is handled appropriately.
- [ ] Required specialist and editorial approvals are complete.
- [ ] A maintenance owner and review trigger are recorded.

### Calibration and learning

- **Sample pieces tested:** [Titles or links]
- **Reviewers:** [Names or roles]
- **Material disagreements:** [Dimension and different interpretations]
- **Definition change:** [Wording clarified after calibration]
- **Outcome signals:** [Corrections, support themes, task success, or accessibility feedback]
- **Improvement owner:** [Who updates the standard?]
- **Next calibration date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]