Editorial Governance and Strategy

Editorial Policy Change Log

Record policy revisions, rationale, authority, affected workflows, migration work, communication, training, effective dates, and evidence of adoption.

Free editable Markdown · Policy owners, editorial leaders, and compliance teams · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Change identity

Policy title: [Official name]
Policy owner: [Accountable role]
Previous version: [Version and effective date]
New version: [Version and effective date]
Approval date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Approver: [Name and authority]
Change entry ID: [Durable identifier]
Authoritative policy URL: [Current source]
Archived version location: [Protected history]

Rationale and decision

Trigger: [Incident, evidence, law, repeated exception, or another reason]
Problem with previous rule: [Describe observed effect]
Clause changed: [Section reference]
Meaning before: [Plain-language summary]
Meaning now: [Plain-language summary]
Alternatives considered: [Options and reasons]
Decision rationale: [Why this change is proportionate]
Unresolved question: [Owner and resolution date]

Impact and rollout

Affected roles: [Who works differently?]
Affected content: [Channels, regions, products, and in-flight work]
Dependent documents: [RACI, templates, briefs, and procedures]
System changes: [Forms, permissions, automation, or reports]
Training or acknowledgment: [Method and audience]
Transition rule: [Which version applies during migration?]
Migration owner: [Role and date]

Required pre-effective-date changes are complete.
Obsolete links and copies have retirement owners.
Emergency and exception paths reflect the new rule.

Adoption review

Communication record: [Audience, channel, and date]
Understanding check: [Scenario, acknowledgment, or assessment]
Work sampled: [Items and result]
Questions or exceptions: [Pattern observed]
Corrective action: [Owner and date]
Next policy review: [YYYY-MM-DD or event]

How to use this template

Identify the approved policy, previous version, exact clauses changed, and evidence motivating the revision.
Summarize substantive additions, removals, and meaning changes in language affected contributors can understand.
Map dependent workflows, systems, templates, training, contracts, and in-progress work.
Record approval, version, effective date, migration owners, communication, and any transition rule before release.
Verify adoption with real work and retire obsolete guidance, then append outcomes and future review triggers.

Explain the problem before the wording

A redline shows what changed but not why. Record the evidence that triggered revision: repeated interpretation disputes, an incident, user harm, regulatory or platform change, new research, obsolete tooling, or a pattern of exceptions. State the old requirement and the practical problem without rewriting history to make the update inevitable. Include alternatives considered and why they were rejected. This context helps future owners distinguish a durable principle from a temporary implementation choice and prevents the same argument from restarting after team turnover.

Map every downstream effect

Policy text rarely operates alone. A changed approval threshold may affect intake forms, RACI charts, templates, automation, training, contracts, dashboards, archive rules, and emergency procedures. Identify affected audiences and systems before setting the effective date. Separate work that must be completed before the policy takes effect from later improvement. Assign each migration task to an owner with a verifiable completion signal. If old and new rules coexist during transition, define which version governs each case and how to handle work already in progress.

Prove communication and adoption

Sending a broad announcement does not show that the right people understood a changed duty. Match communication to impact: a short release note may suit terminology cleanup, while a new privacy control may require role-specific training, an acknowledgment, and workflow testing. Publish one authoritative current version and maintain links from dependent documents. After rollout, sample real work, review questions and exceptions, and verify that old forms or instructions are no longer circulating. Record corrections to the rollout without erasing the original approval history.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: source-date standard

Orchard Review is an invented publication and this policy history is illustrative.

Trigger: Editors repeatedly cited an undated internal summary for product availability.
Change: The source policy now requires a visible source date and direct owner confirmation for time-sensitive availability claims.
Affected workflow: The brief gains a source-date field, and the fact-checking signoff names the confirming product owner.
Transition: Drafts already in review use the new check; published pages enter a prioritized audit.
Adoption check: The policy owner samples ten updates after thirty days and records any missing confirmations.

Frequently asked questions

Does every copy edit need a change-log entry?

No. Record changes that affect meaning, duties, authority, scope, controls, or interpretation. Minor spelling and formatting corrections can remain in normal version history unless the organization’s formal rules require otherwise.

Should the old policy be deleted?

Keep a protected, clearly archived version with its effective period. Remove obsolete copies from active workflows, but preserve history for audits, disputes, and understanding why past work followed a different requirement.

What if rollout cannot finish before the effective date?

Either adjust the date or define a controlled transition approved by the policy owner. Name which cases use each version, add temporary safeguards, assign unfinished work, and communicate the boundary. Avoid an undeclared period of selective compliance.

How is a policy change different from an exception?

A policy change revises the general rule through authorized governance. An exception allows a narrow, time-limited departure while the rule remains in force. Repeated similar exceptions are evidence worth considering during formal review.