Set the rules for what enters a draft, who stands behind it and what happens when a published claim needs correcting.
A writer can follow “a person checks everything” and still leave the agency exposed to a basic question: which person checked the salary example, the client reference or the claim in the search description?
An AI blogging policy needs to allocate those decisions. It should give your content owner something to enforce when a draft arrives, including when the easiest answer is to hold it.
The policy below is a starting point to adapt for your agency. Replace the role placeholders, agree the approval route and record who adopts it. It covers public articles and their accompanying material. It does not authorise AI use for candidate assessment or other recruitment decisions.
Adopt the scope before adopting the wording
Decide which people, tools and publishing surfaces the policy covers. An external freelancer's draft, an agency employee's AI-assisted article and a supplier-produced page may need the same evidence standard even though their access differs.
Keep a named policy owner and a route for questions. “Ask compliance” is incomplete if nobody has accepted that responsibility. A small agency can assign several responsibilities to one person, but the policy should still say which decision they are making.
Copy and adapt the clauses below. The agency's approved-tool list, privacy obligations and publishing permissions need to sit alongside them; this template does not replace those arrangements.
Copyable policy: AI-assisted website articles
Purpose and ownership
We use approved AI tools to assist research, drafting and editing of public articles. A named person remains accountable for the material we publish. AI output is working material until the required checks are complete.
This policy covers article text, headlines, images, captions, links, author information, metadata and structured data on [covered sites/channels]. It applies to [employees, contractors and suppliers in scope].
The policy owner is [role/person]. The publishing authority is [role/person]. Adoption date, version and next review trigger are recorded in [controlled location]. This policy does not approve other uses of AI in recruitment.
Approved inputs
Writers may use agency-approved public information and material specifically authorised for the article's purpose. They must record the source and any conditions on its use.
Do not enter candidate records, private assessment notes, client-confidential information, embargoed vacancies or unpublished commercial information into a tool merely because it is convenient for drafting. Such material must be handled through the agency's separate authorised process, with the tool, purpose, access and disclosure decision confirmed before use.
Removing a name is not sufficient if the remaining detail can identify a person or client. For a general explanation, use a non-identifying abstract description or a clearly labelled hypothetical example instead of adapting a recognisable private case.
Collect and share only what the task requires. Keep research access and retained material within the agency's approved privacy and security arrangements.
These input rules are deliberately specific to agency writing. A role title approved for a public advert and a candidate's private explanation for leaving a job are different kinds of material. The fact that both help tell a story does not give the writer the same permission to use them.
The OAIC's commercial AI guidance recommends minimising personal information entered into AI systems. Its APP 3 guidance addresses data minimisation for covered entities, while APP 6 addresses permitted purposes and secondary-use exceptions. Confirm how those requirements apply to your agency and proposed material. An earlier collection notice is not a universal publication permission.
Evidence and honest representation
Every checkable claim needs an accessible source that supports the wording we intend to publish. The writer records the source, date status, relevant passage and any limitation that affects the claim.
Do not invent customers, testimonials, interviews, quotes, personal experience, credentials or measured outcomes. A hypothetical example must be identified as hypothetical and must not imply a real agency result.
Attribute sources accurately. An AI-generated citation, quotation or summary must be checked against the underlying material. If the evidence cannot be obtained, remove or rewrite the claim to something that can be established.
Use author and contributor information that accurately describes who is responsible for the article. Do not assign a fictitious expert or claim personal experience that the author has not established. Follow [agency disclosure rule] for explaining material AI assistance and any other disclosures relevant to the article.
Google's helpful-content guidance warns against deceptive authorship information. That supports honest attribution; it does not turn a byline format or an AI disclosure into a ranking guarantee. Your policy should tell the writer what the agency expects without inventing a search-engine rule.
Review and permission to publish
The editor checks the article's argument, usefulness and fit for its intended reader. The designated fact owner checks specialist claims within their responsibility, including approved role facts, legal statements or product capabilities.
Review the complete public package: visible article, headline, images, captions, author details, links, search description, social preview and structured data. A checked body does not approve an unchecked claim in another surface.
The publisher confirms that required decisions and evidence are recorded for the final version. An unresolved material claim, uncertain disclosure right or missing accountable reviewer prevents publication until resolved or removed.
AI assistance does not authorise publication. Only [publishing role] may release the final reviewed version through the agency's approved publishing process. Changes that alter a material claim, example or disclosure return to the responsible reviewer before release.
Google's guidance on generative AI content calls for manual fact-checking and review, including metadata, structured data and alt text. Put those surfaces into the acceptance decision rather than leaving them to an assumed final technical check.
Corrections, expiry and exceptions
Anyone who identifies a possible error reports the article URL, wording and concern to [correction owner/contact]. The owner preserves the disputed wording and its evidence, assesses the public effect and assigns the correction decision.
Where a material claim cannot be supported, the owner can hold the draft or restrict the affected published material through the approved process while the issue is resolved. Correct or remove the claim and update all affected surfaces, including metadata and images that contain the same assertion.
Record what changed, why, who approved it and when. Use a reader-visible correction where needed to explain a material error; do not silently substitute a new story for an invented one. Preserve internal history according to the agency's retention and access rules.
Review an article when its evidence changes or expires, the underlying product or law changes, a source is withdrawn, or a credible complaint raises a material concern. Add a review date where the subject needs one; do not assume one interval suits every article.
Exceptions require a documented request, accountable decision-maker, permitted scope and review condition. An exception cannot authorise a misleading claim or bypass applicable legal obligations. If authority or evidence remains unresolved, keep the affected material out of publication.
Where personal information is involved, the OAIC's APP 11 guidance addresses reasonable security measures and disposal when information is no longer needed for permitted purposes, subject to its exceptions. Preserve useful correction evidence without treating the policy as permission to retain every personal record indefinitely.
Make the responsibilities usable
Before adoption, put actual names or accountable roles against this table. “The team” should not be the final answer in the owner column.
| Responsibility | Decision they own | Evidence they leave |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | Does the source support this wording? | Source passage, date status and limitation |
| Writer/editor | Is the article accurate in meaning, useful and honestly represented? | Final draft and resolved editorial changes |
| Specialist fact owner | Is the claim within authorised facts and scope? | Accepted wording or required correction, with proof |
| Publisher | Is this final public package authorised for release? | Version released and recorded review decision |
| Correction owner | What must change when evidence fails? | Issue, preserved wording, action, owner and date |
The roles can overlap in a small agency. What matters is that the person knows which decisions they own and has the evidence and authority to make them. An external supplier still needs a named agency contact for unresolved claims.
Hypothetical example: an approved role fact becomes stale
Suppose an article uses a client-approved working arrangement as a practical example. Before publication, the client changes that arrangement. The article's salary discussion remains accurate, but the working-arrangement example no longer is.
Under this policy, the fact owner checks the revised source and supplies replacement wording or removes the example. The editor checks whether the surrounding argument still holds. The publisher reviews the final package, including any summary or social preview that repeats the old arrangement. The change and its reason stay in the review record.
If the page was already public, the correction owner assesses the affected surfaces and the need for a reader-visible explanation. The agency does not need to restart unrelated research, but it does need to stop repeating the superseded claim.
Use a prepared draft without surrendering the decision
The AutoBlog workflow guide covers how research and drafting fit together. This policy adds the agency's authority to accept, hold or correct what emerges from that work. For the separate question of content and search visibility, use the recruitment agency search guide.
FluxHire's AI blog writer prepares researched drafts with sources, FAQs and metadata. A person publishes, and AutoBlog is set up during early-access onboarding. The useful starting point is a package the editor can review against the policy, rather than an instruction to trust generated copy.
Request early access with the article type you want to prepare and the people who will own review and publication. Supported records, integrations and review steps are confirmed with each team. Keep the policy's acceptance decision with your agency while evaluating how the prepared material supports it.