Editorial review for AI-assisted publishers and newsletters
You publish on a schedule. AI helps you keep it. Nobody is checking.
You run a niche site, a newsletter with a few thousand subscribers, or a small publication with more topics than writers. AI drafts, summarizes and expands for you, and output has gone up. What has not gone up is the number of people reading each piece before it goes out. Often that number is one, and it is you, at eleven at night, the day before it ships.
That is the gap editorial QA for AI assisted content is meant to close. A professional editor reads one article or issue the way a skeptical subscriber would, marks every passage that is invented, unsupported, contradictory or interchangeable with a hundred other sites, and emails you corrections you paste back into the tool that drafted it. One piece, one flat fee, usually within one business day.
What usually goes wrong
Newsrooms with full editing desks have published AI-assisted mistakes and had to correct them in public. We keep a running list at published AI content mistakes, 2025-2026. Small publishers have the same failure modes and no desk. These are the ones we see most.
Fabricated quotes. The model needs a quote to make a paragraph feel reported, so it writes one and attributes it to a real person. A fictional industry newsletter runs “a spokesperson said the rollout would be complete by spring,” and no spokesperson said anything.
Sources that do not exist or do not say that. A study with a plausible title at a real university, a report from a real agency with a number that is not in it, a link that resolves to an unrelated page. A fictional personal-finance site cites “a 2024 Federal Reserve survey” for a figure that appears in no Fed publication.
Stale facts presented as current. The model’s knowledge stops somewhere, and it does not always tell you. A fictional tech newsletter describes a product’s pricing tiers that were replaced months earlier, in the present tense, under the issue’s date.
The same article everyone else published. AI drafts from the consensus of what is already online. A fictional gardening site’s “best tomatoes for containers” post lists the same six varieties in the same order as the first page of search results, with nothing a reader could not have found in thirty seconds.
Contradictions between sections. When an issue is assembled from several generated pieces, one section says the opposite of another. A fictional real-estate newsletter advises readers to lock a rate now and, four paragraphs later, to wait for cuts.
Each of these is a correction you would have to publish, or a subscriber who quietly stops opening.
How the review works for you
Paste the URL of the article or the web version of the issue, add your email, pay. An editor reads a snapshot of the page and marks problems paragraph by paragraph. You get an email with numbered corrections, each quoting the passage and written as an instruction your AI can apply. Full details are on how it works.
We do not rewrite, do not publish, and do not run AI detectors. We flag claims that need a source or look wrong; we are not a legal-grade fact-checking desk, and we say so when a claim needs verification you have to do yourself.
What you get back
A cover note with the editor’s overall read, then the corrections. For a newsletter issue that might be: two quotes to remove or source, one statistic to verify against the actual report, a section that repeats the lede, and a closing paragraph that says nothing. Each item is specific enough to act on in minutes. The sample review shows the full format.
Questions publishers ask
Can you review before it goes out, not after?
Yes, and that is the better order. Publish the draft to an unlisted URL, a preview page or a web-version link that opens without a login, order the review, apply the corrections, then send. If the page needs a password we cannot read it, and you get a full refund.
We publish several pieces a week. Is one-at-a-time practical?
Each review is one URL and one payment, with no account or subscription, so you can order for the pieces that carry the most risk: anything with quotes, numbers, named people or advice. Many publishers review the lead story and let the roundup go. If you have steady volume, contact us about scheduling.
Will the editor check every link and citation?
The editor checks whether claims are supported, flags sources that look invented or misquoted, and tells you which ones to verify. For claims that need primary-source confirmation, the correction says exactly what to confirm rather than guessing.
Do you tell our readers, or anyone, that the piece was reviewed?
No. The review goes to the email you enter and nowhere else. We do not contact anyone, leave comments or keep a public record.
Get a second reader before the send button
Paste the link, pay one flat fee, and a professional editor reads the issue before your subscribers do.