Our clinical reviewer and our legal reviewer want different things. Where does that get settled?

Before the writing, on one page. The brief and outline say what the article is for, what each section will state, and what it will not claim. That is short enough that both of them will get through it, and specific enough that an objection has something exact to land on. cpywrk does not settle it, and does not check either thing: not compliance, not clinical accuracy. What it does is stop the two reads happening for the first time on a draft that is already written.

Our marketing can only describe what the product has been cleared to do. Can that be set once?

Yes. Put it in your brand profile as a standing rule and it applies to every article, not only the one somebody remembered to flag. cpywrk cannot know where that line sits, so you draw it. The outline then names what each section will claim, so you see the boundary before you see a draft, and the draft is checked against that outline before it reaches you.

The example that would explain this best is a real patient. What then?

It stays out. The research runs on published sources, and the only other input is the context you put in the brief, so nothing about a real person reaches an article unless you put it there yourself. What is left is a harder writing job: explain the mechanism properly, attribute what the published work says, and be specific about where the answer stops. Those are the articles a clinician finishes.

What stops a claim going in with nothing behind it?

Every draft is read back against the research it was built from, and where a claim runs ahead of what the research found, the passage is flagged rather than quietly softened. A number in an article traces to the brief you approved or to something the article names, because cpywrk does not invent one. Source links are opened before publishing, so one that has died or quietly moved comes back flagged, next to the passage that leans on it. That confirms the link resolves. Whether the source carries the claim is for your reviewers to decide.

Written for the clinical read
and the legal one

In healthtech a draft does not go to one reviewer. It goes to somebody clinical and somebody legal, and the sentence that satisfies one is often the sentence the other strikes.

Written for healthtech marketing that answers to a clinical reader and a legal one before anything goes out.

Start free trial See what changes here

One full article free. No card required, no time limit.

What changes here

Your two reviewers are not reading for the same thing

Send a finished draft to both at once and you get two sets of notes that do not agree. The clinician marks a sentence because it is not how the thing behaves with a real person in front of it. The lawyer marks the same sentence because it describes the product doing something it has not been cleared to do, then marks the paragraph below it because the outcome it mentions is not attached to anything. Marketing is now mediating between two people who read the same words for different reasons, and the draft is older than the launch it was written for.

cpywrk puts the boundaries in first. The brief and outline land before any drafting: what the article is for, who it addresses, what each section will state, and what it will not go near. An outcome nobody can attribute. A use the product has not been cleared for. An example that would need a real patient to work. That document runs to a page. Both of your readers will get to the end of it, and they will be reading the same words at the same time, which is the thing that never happens with a finished draft.

The draft that follows is written inside the lines you drew. If a sentence steps over one, say so and it goes back for another pass.

What the clinical read is for

Whether the description matches what actually happens in a real setting, and whether a reader could act on it wrongly. That reader is a clinician, and this is the objection you cannot argue your way out of.

What the legal read is for

Whether you are allowed to say it: inside the cleared intended use, and with something behind every outcome the article mentions. A different question, on sentences the clinician was happy with.

Neither of those judgements is ours to make. cpywrk checks neither one: not clinical accuracy, not compliance. It also has no idea what your product has been cleared to do until you write that down. You draw the boundaries. It writes inside them, names its sources, and waits for a person to say yes.

Two pairs of reading glasses set down at different angles on one printed document, one pair folded on a violet cloth, each casting its own shadow.

The work itself

A clinician stops at the first sentence that sounds like a brochure

The person you most want to reach reads for a living and has been sold to by everyone in your category. They can tell inside a paragraph whether the writer has done the work. What holds them is specificity: the mechanism explained step by step, the limits stated plainly, and claims that say where they came from instead of floating free. None of that is a concession to your reviewers. It is what makes the piece worth a clinician reading to the end.

The example that would make it land is usually a real person, and it cannot be used. That is a genuine constraint on the writing, not a formality. An article that cannot lean on a case has to earn attention another way: explain how it actually works, attribute what the published work says and who published it, and be specific about the conditions where it does not hold. cpywrk writes from published sources and from what you put in the brief, so the only patient material in an article is material you chose to put there.

Stay inside the intended use

The line is yours to set, and it holds for every article once it is written into your brand profile. Nothing in the pipeline infers it for you.

Substantiate it or leave it out

cpywrk does not invent a number. An outcome claim names what it rests on, in the text, with the link. Belief is not a source.

Work without the case you cannot tell

Mechanism, published work, and honesty about the limits, instead of a story about somebody real. Harder to write, which is what the research step is there for.

No adjective doing a claim's job

A clinician hears the register before the argument. Words that promise or oversell read as marketing to them, and any word you never want in your copy sits in your brand profile as a standing rule.

Written that way, an article gives your two readers less to argue about and gives the one outside your company a reason to keep going. Those are usually the same paragraphs doing both jobs.

Where it ends up

A finished article still has to get onto the site

An article that took two people to clear is the expensive one on your site, and it is usually the one still waiting in a folder because putting it live belongs to somebody else with a different backlog. Clearing it was the hard part. Publishing it should not be a second project.

Webhook, into your own build

The finished article, its metadata and its images are handed to whatever builds your site, so publishing stops waiting for an engineer to have a free afternoon.

WordPress, direct

If the marketing site runs on WordPress, connect it once. After that it is one button: press Publish and the article is live, formatted.

Publishing can also run on a schedule you set: a date and time per article in your own time zone, or a batch at one or two a day. Any scheduled article can be rescheduled or cancelled.

The LinkedIn, X and Instagram versions come out of the same brief, written for how each one reads. Those are yours to post when you choose. We write them; we do not post them for you.

Before it reaches you

Six checks, every article, before anyone reads it

Your two readers are hunting the same thing from opposite ends: a sentence with nothing behind it. So the draft reaches them having already had every claim measured against what the research actually found.

Search

It targets a question people actually type, and it is built to rank for it.

AI answers

Buyers now ask an assistant to draw up the shortlist. The article is structured so those systems can quote it.

Brand voice

It sounds like your company, checked against rules you set once rather than re-explained every time.

Machine tells

Hedging, filler and the giveaway phrasing are removed before the draft reaches you.

Brief compliance

It covers what the brief said it would, rather than drifting somewhere easier to write.

Learnings

Corrections you made last month are applied this month, so you stop repeating yourself.

Before a draft reaches you it has also been checked for claims the research does not support, and every source link has been checked live. See every step up close.

You approve the outline before writing starts and read the draft before it publishes. Nothing goes onto your site that a person has not said yes to.

Proof

Read something it made and judge for yourself

We are not going to show you another vendor's traffic chart. What we can show you is our own work. Every article on this blog came out of the same system this page is describing: researched, written, checked, and published, then read and approved by a person before it went out.

The subject is content and search rather than your category, because that is what we sell. Read one anyway and answer the only question a sample can settle: is this the standard you would put your company's name on?

Read the blog

Questions worth asking first

Our clinical reviewer and our legal reviewer want different things. Where does that get settled?: Before the writing, on one page. The brief and outline say what the article is for, what each section will state, and what it will not claim. That is short enough that both of them will get through it, and specific enough that an objection has something exact to land on. cpywrk does not settle it, and does not check either thing: not compliance, not clinical accuracy. What it does is stop the two reads happening for the first time on a draft that is already written.
Our marketing can only describe what the product has been cleared to do. Can that be set once?: Yes. Put it in your brand profile as a standing rule and it applies to every article, not only the one somebody remembered to flag. cpywrk cannot know where that line sits, so you draw it. The outline then names what each section will claim, so you see the boundary before you see a draft, and the draft is checked against that outline before it reaches you.
The example that would explain this best is a real patient. What then?: It stays out. The research runs on published sources, and the only other input is the context you put in the brief, so nothing about a real person reaches an article unless you put it there yourself. What is left is a harder writing job: explain the mechanism properly, attribute what the published work says, and be specific about where the answer stops. Those are the articles a clinician finishes.
What stops a claim going in with nothing behind it?: Every draft is read back against the research it was built from, and where a claim runs ahead of what the research found, the passage is flagged rather than quietly softened. A number in an article traces to the brief you approved or to something the article names, because cpywrk does not invent one. Source links are opened before publishing, so one that has died or quietly moved comes back flagged, next to the passage that leans on it. That confirms the link resolves. Whether the source carries the claim is for your reviewers to decide.

A different kind of software

Or start from what content has to do for any software company.

Run one article on your own site and see

You bring the topic, approve one outline and read one draft. The research, the writing, the checks and the publishing happen without you, and if the draft misses, you send it back: revisions are unlimited and cost nothing from your plan.

Start free trial