---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify that content assets are on-message, on-brand, and faithful to the approved messaging framework. Drift between the framework and the content is the most common cause of campaigns that look like several different brands talking to several different audiences at once.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, file feedback for any violation:

- **Tone and voice fit** — The asset's register matches the framework's tone guidelines for this segment and channel category. Tone drift (corporate voice on a community channel, casual voice on a high-stakes touch) is a finding. Inconsistent register within a single asset is a finding.
- **Key-message fidelity** — Every key message from the strategy is present in the asset family without distortion. Quietly softened proof points, replaced value propositions, or invented claims are findings. "Adapted for channel" is fine; "replaced because the writer disagreed" is not.
- **Claim substantiation** — Every claim in the copy is supported by a proof point in the framework, or by evidence the framework cites. Invented statistics, unattributed customer quotes, and fabricated outcome numbers are findings.
- **Visual brand consistency** — Where the asset includes visual briefs (or where the unit produces visual assets), the brief or asset adheres to the brand's visual system: hierarchy, imagery treatment, accessibility minimums. Specific design-system tokens (color names, type tokens, icon sets) belong in the project overlay; the lens here is "does this clearly belong to this brand."
- **CTA clarity and alignment** — Every asset has a specific call-to-action aligned with the asset's stated job. Multiple competing CTAs in one asset, vague CTAs ("learn more" with no destination context), or missing CTAs are findings.
- **Cross-asset consistency** — Entity names, product names, claim language, and treatment of named segments are identical across every asset in the unit family. Drift between a landing page's wording and an email's wording for the same value prop is a finding.

## Common failure modes to look for

- An asset that paraphrases the framework's value proposition into something with different meaning
- An asset that introduces a claim, statistic, or customer quote not present in the framework or its cited evidence
- A landing page that has three competing CTAs above the fold (no asset can have three primary actions)
- An email subject line in one register and an email body in a different register
- Channel-agnostic copy reused verbatim across channels that have different native registers
- A visual brief that describes "modern, clean, on-brand" without specifying anything verifiable
- Placeholder text ("[Insert benefit here]", "TBD") in a drafted asset
