Pipeline Design
A twelve-stage delivery design that separated intake, production, quality control, recovery, and editorial handoff.
Public review note: This document describes the operating model and delivery decisions. Provider names, credentials, internal URLs, and production identifiers are intentionally omitted.
Delivery hierarchy
Level 1
The complete AI Content Pipeline from brief to review-ready document.
Level 2
Four delivery layers: intake, production, controls, and handoff.
Level 3
Twelve visible stages, each with an action, owner, and expected result.
Stage map
| Stage | Action | Result / control |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Brief intake | Capture keyword, audience, brand, and delivery requirements. | A complete request ready for validation. |
| 2. Brand context | Load tone, structure, exclusions, and required messaging. | Instructions the workflow can carry through production. |
| 3. Research and sources | Collect source material and record the evidence boundary. | Inputs available for review instead of hidden assumptions. |
| 4. Outline | Turn the brief into a structured article plan. | A reviewable shape before expensive generation. |
| 5. Draft | Generate the first article version from the approved inputs. | A complete draft with required fields present. |
| 6. Revision | Improve clarity, structure, and coverage against the brief. | A stronger draft ready for control checks. |
| 7. Humanization | Reduce repetitive phrasing and check that the text reads naturally. | Editorial quality improved before handoff. |
| 8. Quality gates | Check completeness, source use, formatting, and prohibited output. | Incomplete or unsafe output is stopped or returned for repair. |
| 9. Recovery | Retry, repair, or route a failed job without losing its history. | Failure becomes a visible state, not a silent gap. |
| 10. Document creation | Assemble the approved content into a review-ready document. | A consistent artifact for the editor. |
| 11. Editor handoff | Present the document with the context needed for human review. | The editor can correct, approve, or request changes. |
| 12. Completion record | Save status, output, checks, and recovery notes. | A traceable delivery record for reporting and follow-up. |
Design decisions
- Use asynchronous jobs so a slow provider response does not block the whole workflow.
- Keep each stage explicit so status reporting can distinguish waiting, failed, recovered, and completed work.
- Place quality gates before document handoff so the editor receives a usable starting point.
- Preserve a human review step because generation quality and source interpretation are not deterministic.