The short version
- Three passes, run separately. The 255-page engine was generated first, then verified, then de-AI'd, because one combined pass lets the fast half win.
- Style before facts buys polish on claims that may not survive. A fluent sentence reads as settled and the number inside it stops getting questioned.
- A repaired batch of twenty posts still carried supporting detail nobody could source, because the source file behind it held one-line entries.
- The last read is a person answering two questions: does the argument hold, and could the client recognise themselves in the anonymised story.
We edit in three passes, never at once, and always in the same order: substance, facts, style. The largest content engine we have shipped, 255 pages, was planned and generated first, then verified and de-AI’d in separate passes. Combine them and the confident half of the work sets the pace.
What are the three passes?
Substance asks what the page holds that the first result does not. It changes order and length, and it can delete a section that took an afternoon to write.
The fact pass assumes every number is wrong until a row in the source file matches it. Style runs last and is mostly mechanical, working from a written list of banned characters and constructions.
What each pass owns:
| Pass | The question it asks | What it changes | What it may not do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substance | What is here that the first result does not have | Structure, order, whole sections | Add a specific it cannot source |
| Facts | Which row does this number come from | Numbers, hedges, scope, sentences that lose their number | Rewrite for rhythm, since a rewritten line needs checking again |
| Style | Does this break a rule we have written down | Punctuation, sentence shapes, heading length | Resolve a claim it cannot verify |
Why does the order matter?
Style first buys polish on claims that may not survive the fact pass, and polish makes a wrong claim harder to challenge. A fluent sentence reads as settled, so the number inside it gets the benefit of the doubt from the next person to read it.
Substance first also protects the effort. A section cut in the first pass costs an afternoon. Cut at the end, it costs the fact-checking and the line editing that went into it too.
Generation is fast and arrives sounding certain. The pass that checks it is slow, and its whole job is finding reasons to reject. Put both in one sitting and the pace comes from the half producing text.
Why does an edit pass invent things?
Because the gap is visible and closing it takes one sentence. We ran a repair over a batch of twenty AI-written posts that came back at around 595 words against a bar of 1,000 to 1,400, with no tables and no FAQs. The repair fixed the structure. An adversarial audit afterwards still found supporting detail nobody could trace.
The cause was upstream. The source file held one-line entries, so a writer reaching for the detail behind a line found nothing there and produced something that fitted. The fix was deepening the source rather than adding another instruction against inventing, because an instruction competes with a visible gap and the gap wins.
The fact pass carries one rule with no exceptions. When a sentence needs a number that has no row, the sentence loses the number. A vaguer version of the same claim is the same fabrication with the edges filed off.
What does the last read leave to a person?
Two questions no script answers. Whether the argument holds, and whether a client could read an anonymised story and recognise themselves in it. The second has ended pieces that were otherwise finished.
Mechanical does not mean blind. When we swept a punctuation rule across the library, each instance had to be classified before it was replaced, because roughly a third were joining two independent clauses and a blanket comma would have left comma splices across 200 posts.
An edit pass that finds a gap will fill it. That is why the source file has to be open rather than remembered.
What gets sent back instead of edited?
A draft with nothing first-party on it. Editing arranges evidence and cannot supply it, so a piece with no number from our own work and no account of doing the thing goes back to the brief.
That batch of twenty missed the documented content standard completely, because nothing in the brief made the writer open it. Sending the draft back with the source attached fixes more than editing the draft does.
The two checks either side of this process are tracing every number to a source file and the quality test that replaced our AI-tell review.
Frequently asked questions
What are the three passes in an editing process?
Substance, then facts, then style. Substance asks what the page holds that the first result does not and can delete whole sections. The fact pass assumes every number is wrong until a row in a source file matches it.
Why should fact-checking come before line editing?
Because polish makes a wrong claim harder to challenge. A fluent sentence reads as settled and the number inside it stops getting questioned. Line editing also has to be redone every time the fact pass rewrites a sentence.
Why do editors add details that are not true?
Because a pass that finds a gap closes it. When our source file held one-line entries, a writer reaching for the detail behind a line found nothing and produced something plausible. The fix was deepening the source.
How many editing passes does a piece need?
Three, run separately. Combining them means the half producing text sets the pace and the half looking for reasons to reject gets overruled.
What should a person still check after an automated content review?
Whether the argument holds, and whether an anonymised story could still be recognised by the client inside it. Neither has a threshold, so neither belongs in a script.
When is a draft not worth editing?
When it carries nothing first-party. Editing arranges evidence and cannot supply it, so a piece with no number from your own work and no account of having done the thing goes back to the brief.
Sources
- Chua Network delivery data across 8 client accounts (internal fact bank)
- Chua Network engagement records, anonymized (internal experience bank)
