# Editorial Principles Decision Log

Record how an editor resolved a difficult publishing choice when accuracy, clarity, speed, independence, safety, or audience value pulled in different directions.

## Usage note

Create an entry when reasonable people could apply valid editorial principles differently, not for every routine edit. The log should preserve the facts, alternatives, authority, and conditions known at the time. It is a learning and accountability record; it should not expose confidential personal details or replace legal, safety, or specialist review.

## How to use this template

1. Describe the exact publishing decision, deadline, audience, and competing principles before stating a preference.
2. Separate confirmed facts, missing information, assumptions, applicable policies, and specialist advice.
3. Compare at least two feasible options using the same benefits, harms, reversibility, and precedent questions.
4. Record the authorized decision, dissent, required safeguards, owners, and approval time.
5. Reopen the entry when its trigger occurs, then document what the team learned and whether guidance should change.

## Blank template

### Decision context

- **Log ID:** [Use a durable identifier]
- **Content or project:** [Title and internal link]
- **Decision required:** [State one question]
- **Decision deadline:** [Date and time]
- **Affected audience:** [Who may benefit or be harmed?]
- **Competing principles:** [For example, speed and verification]
- **Confirmed facts:** [List evidence available now]
- **Unknowns:** [List information that could change the choice]
- **Policies consulted:** [Link current standards]

### Options and reasoning

- **Option A:** [Describe the feasible course]
- **Benefits of A:** [Who benefits and how?]
- **Risks of A:** [Severity, likelihood, and reversibility]
- **Option B:** [Describe the alternative]
- **Benefits of B:** [Who benefits and how?]
- **Risks of B:** [Severity, likelihood, and reversibility]
- **Delay or decline option:** [Explain whether it is feasible]
- **Precedent concern:** [What might future teams infer?]
- **Dissenting view:** [Record material disagreement fairly]

### Decision and controls

- **Decision:** [State the chosen action]
- **Decision maker:** [Name and authority]
- **Rationale:** [Explain how principles were balanced]
- **Required changes:** [Headline, sourcing, framing, distribution, or other safeguards]
- **Condition owners:** [Name each person and due date]
- [ ] Conflicts of interest were declared.
- [ ] Required specialist review was completed.
- [ ] The publish, delay, or decline action matches the recorded decision.

### Follow-up

- **Review trigger:** [Date, complaint, evidence change, or performance threshold]
- **Observed outcome:** [Complete later]
- **Unexpected effects:** [Complete later]
- **Process lesson:** [What should be repeated or changed?]
- **Policy action:** [No change, clarification, or formal revision]