A polished draft can still be wrong
Good grammar does not tell you whether you have the right person, a current fact, or a relevant offer. Review the meaning of the message before spending time polishing the opening. An elegant sentence built on a false assumption needs a new premise, not a better adjective.
Use the checklist below for your own messages or when reviewing a teammate’s work. Keep the research, recipient details, and final message in view. This is an editorial quality checklist, not a complete legal or platform-compliance review.
The pre-send checklist
Work from identity and evidence toward wording and execution. If an earlier check fails, resolve it before approving the draft. A subject line that sounds good cannot compensate for contacting the wrong company.
- Recipient: Is this the intended person, at the intended company, using the intended address or profile?
- Evidence: Can each personalized fact be traced to a source, and is it current enough for the claim?
- Relevance: Is there a clear connection between that fact and what we offer?
- Assumptions: Have we turned guessed priorities, problems, or budgets into statements of fact?
- Promises: Can we stand behind every delivery, capability, and outcome claim?
- Voice: Does this sound like the sender, with a level of familiarity the relationship supports?
- Details: Are the subject, links, attachments, and signature accurate and intentional?
- Next step: Is there one understandable request, with enough context to answer it?
- Conversation: Has the person replied, asked us to stop, or changed the situation since the draft was prepared?
- Authority: Is the reviewer authorized for the sender, and is this the exact version being approved?
Review a draft that looks ready but is not
In this separate fictional example, the intended recipient is Elena at Harbor Services. A teammate has confirmed that Harbor opened its new location last year. The draft below uses the wrong name, treats the opening as upcoming, and offers a service the seller does not provide.
- Needs revision · Subject: Your upcoming location launch
- Hi Maya, Congrats on the location opening next month. We can recruit and onboard your entire team before launch. Can we discuss staffing on Friday? Alex
- What needs to change
- The recipient is Elena, not Maya. The location opened last year, so the launch timing is stale. The seller provides onboarding software, not recruiting services. Correct the identity, timing, and offer before polishing the message.
Correct the premise, then the wording
The revision corrects the name, removes the stale launch date, and describes what the seller actually offers. It gives Elena an answerable question about onboarding across locations. The changes do not guarantee a reply; they make the message one the sender can defend.
- Revised · Subject: Onboarding across locations
- Hi Elena, I saw Harbor now operates across two locations. We build onboarding software for teams working across locations. Are you using the same onboarding process at both locations, or does each team manage it separately? Alex
- The recipient’s name matches the person being contacted.
- The message uses current company context and an accurate service description.
- The question lets the recipient explain the situation.
- The sender asks for a response rather than assuming a meeting.
Choose the next action explicitly
Approval is one possible outcome of review. It is not the default outcome. A reviewer should be able to explain why the message is ready, or what is needed before it will be.
- Approve
- The recipient, evidence, offer, and final wording are ready, and the sender authority is clear.
- Revise
- The premise is sound, but the wording, details, or request need work.
- Seek more context
- An important fact or responsibility is uncertain enough to change the message.
- Do not contact
- There is no useful fit, the person has asked to stop, or the conversation makes the outreach inappropriate.
Apply the same review to follow-ups and replies
A message that made sense yesterday may not make sense after a reply. Read the latest conversation before sending a follow-up. A prospect who has asked a specific question needs an answer to that question, not the next generic step in a sequence.
Review revised messages again. Small edits can change the claim, the offer, or the requested action. Check the sender and recipient again whenever either changes. Approval should describe what is actually going out, not an earlier version someone once liked.
When a team shares the work, leave a short note about the decision. ‘Corrected recipient and opening date; asking how onboarding works across locations’ is more useful to the next person than ‘looks good.’ It preserves the reasoning without turning review into a paperwork exercise.