When a Client Changes a Number After the Draft Was Approved

The release is approved and queued. Then a message: Please use 240 instead of 300 in the training figure. Everything else is fine. The digits change in seconds. The 30 percent in the headline, the nearly a third in the summary and the executive's broad completion in the quote do not change with them.

Treat a late number as a new version of the release. Hold dispatch and keep the approved version. Ask what the new number describes: a correction, a later period or a new definition. Trace it through every figure and phrase built on the old one, then get fresh decisions from the fact owner, the speaker and the client on the new version before anything goes out.

Begin by identifying the accepted version and whether it has already been sent or published. If the draft went out with a handoff that names each decision and its owner, the accepted version and its approver should already be on record. Preserve that version and the client's new instruction. If release is pending, flag the affected item to the release owner and pause its dispatch through the agreed process while the material change is resolved. Confirm the actual status of any scheduled export or distribution.

What the new number describes: a correction of an error, a later reporting date, a revised definition or a different population. Each leads to different wording.

Request the source version, relevant passage and explanation for the change. Is it a correction to an earlier count, a later reporting date, a revised definition or a different population? Ask the fact owner to confirm the effective period. A client's request establishes the proposed edit; it may still leave the supporting evidence and scope unclear.

Keep the old and new values side by side with their definitions. If they describe different periods, both may remain valid for those periods. If the earlier value was wrong when approved, record that correction explicitly. Official statisticians keep the same distinction: the UK Office for Statistics Regulation's glossary↗ defines a scheduled revision as a planned change that adds data unavailable at first publication, and a correction of errors as an update that fixes mistakes made while producing or communicating statistics¹. Do not replace the source reference with the latest attachment and erase the reason the original review reached its decision.

Confirm whether disclosure permission changes too. A corrected internal count may be available for factual review while awaiting public clearance. Identify who can decide that question. The existing approval belongs to a particular version and cannot settle a new disclosure condition simply because the surrounding paragraph looks familiar.

Follow the meaning as well as the digits: every percentage, comparison, headline, chart and quote that relied on the old figure.

In a fictional example, suppose the accepted draft said 300 of 1,000 eligible employees had completed a training program by June 30. The corrected source says 240 completed it; the earlier count accidentally included people who had registered but not finished. The fact owner confirms that the eligible population remains 1,000 and the reporting date has not changed.

The completion share changes from 30 percent to 24 percent, and the claim resting on the new percentage needs its own test. A headline saying nearly a third have completed training needs reconsideration. A quote describing the milestone as evidence of broad completion may also overstate what the corrected count supports. Search for the number, but also inspect the surrounding interpretation and any phrases such as this milestone.

Check the training chart, summary, social copy, spokesperson notes and translations prepared from the accepted draft. Include variants where the count appears only as a percentage or a verbal description. Identify the versions actually scheduled or shared with partners; finding a corrected sentence in the working document does not establish that the distribution file changed.

One possible factual revision is: By June 30, 240 of the 1,000 eligible employees had completed the program, representing 24 percent. The organization may choose whether the percentage helps readers. Either way, retain completed as the defined status and ask the executive to reconsider any interpretation that depended on the larger count.

QuoteIt records internal, client and release decisions against the version they were made on, so the record shows that the client approved the 300 draft and which decisions the 240 version still needs. A change to a stored figure is an explicit old-and-new decision by a person, with the earlier wording kept. Agencies running approvals through a PR suite can compare how QuoteIt and Prowly handle review, and the comparison of AI tools for PR professionals covers the rest.

Yes, when the change is material. The earlier approval covered the earlier wording, so the fact owner, the speaker and the client each decide again on the new version; who approves a public statement sets out those roles.

What changed and why

Template: Accepted version [identifier] stated [old claim]. Proposed version [identifier] states [new claim], because [source-backed reason]. The source is [version, page and passage], confirmed by [fact owner]. Related changes affect [percentage, headline, quote and exports]. Preserve the earlier wording and the check record so reviewers can understand the correction.

Which decisions are needed

Template: [Owner] needs to confirm the corrected assertion and its public use. [Speaker or authorized approver] needs to accept the revised quote in context. [Client owner] needs to accept this material revision, in a reply that names the new version, as an approval email tied to the exact copy would. [Release owner] will authorize the final version and timing once the conditions are resolved. Reuse completed checks only where their evidence and meaning remain applicable.

What the distribution team should use

Template: Current release candidate [file or link]. Earlier export [identifier] is superseded and should remain archived. Dispatch state [held, scheduled after authorization, or already sent]. Owner [person] will confirm that the actual distribution file matches the authorized version. Record the confirmed action rather than treating the requested replacement as completed.

Correct it through every channel that received the original, stating the old and corrected figures and why they changed.

Identify what went out, when, where and to whom. Ask the communications owner to arrange the appropriate correction for those channels, explaining the old and corrected claim clearly, and follow a correction routed through each channel that received the original. Updating the website alone may leave a journalist working from an earlier email. Preserve the original distribution record and track the correction action through the relevant recipients.

The professional codes expect speed. The PRSA Code of Ethics↗ asks members to act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which they are responsible². For the wording, the Code of Practice for Statistics↗ offers a useful model: it asks producers of official statistics to release corrections transparently and as soon as possible, being clear about the nature and scale of the change³. A company release is not bound by that code, but a correction note that says the count was 240, not 300, and why, follows its spirit.

A later-period update differs from a correction of an error in the original period. Establish which occurred before describing the change externally. The team may also need to revisit current reusable facts while retaining accurate historical records, which is the work of replacing an approved fact while the old one stays on record. Make that a separate, explicit decision rather than a side effect of editing the release.

The accepted version remains the starting point for a late change. Trace the changed meaning outward until the supported replacement, renewed decisions and actual distribution file all point to the same known version.