Repurposing is an editorial job. A useful LinkedIn post, email and article may share evidence while serving different reader needs. Giving AI a source and asking for twenty posts often produces repetition. Give it a reader, a purpose and a source boundary instead.
Use a finished article, research note, webinar transcript or approved product document. Include its publication date, any corrections and who owns approval. The output of this workflow is a set of drafts with a claim map. It does not authorize the agent to post to accounts or contact an audience.
What you will leave with
Three channel-specific drafts with source references, a claim map and an editorial review checklist.
Step 1
Extract the source’s actual substance
Ask for the central argument, supporting facts, examples, caveats and practical implications. Keep direct quotes distinct from paraphrases. Exclude facts that are absent from the source unless you deliberately authorize and review additional research. When the source contains uncertain or outdated information, record that before drafting.
The source summary preserves qualifications and does not add claims.
Step 2
Give each channel a job
For LinkedIn, choose one useful observation or framework someone can apply. For email, choose one reader need and one next action. For an article, choose the question that deserves explanation. Define audience and tone for each. This is how one source becomes several useful artifacts without merely changing length.
Each draft has a distinct reader purpose.
Step 3
Draft with an evidence boundary
Ask for the content and a separate mapping from factual statements to source passages. Keep important caveats beside the claims they qualify. Do not let the model create a dramatic personal anecdote, customer result or quotation to improve the hook. Use clear language and concrete actions instead.
Try this instruction
Create a LinkedIn post, an email draft and a short article outline from this approved source. Give each a different reader purpose. Preserve caveats. Return a claim-to-source map. Do not invent experiences, quotes, statistics or results. Leave all outputs as drafts.
Material claims can be traced to the source.
Step 4
Review voice, usefulness and claims separately
Have one pass check factual fidelity and another check whether the reader gains something useful. Remove filler, repeated setup and unsupported superlatives. A useful test is whether a colleague could use the post as a reference without needing the original conversation. Human editorial judgment remains responsible for the final message.
The drafts are faithful, distinct and useful to the intended reader.
Step 5
Package for a deliberate publishing decision
Save the draft, its source, proposed link and unresolved questions together. Identify the owner who can publish and any claims requiring further review. Record the version that was approved so future repurposing starts from the current source, not an outdated draft.
The handoff includes the approved source and an accountable publishing owner.
When you get stuck
Every output says the same thing with a different word count.
Assign different questions and reader actions before generating drafts.
A caveat disappears in the shorter version.
Use the claim map to check shortened content against the source. Remove the claim if its necessary qualification will not fit.
Terms explained
- Claim map
- A list connecting material statements in a draft to their evidence.
- Source boundary
- The agreed materials a draft may rely on, and whether new research is permitted.
Sources and further reading
The workflow and templates are teaching guidance. The sources below support the underlying tools and concepts; product setup and availability can change.
Take it into your next task
Your completion checklist
0 / 5 checked
Checks are saved on this browser. Mark them only after you inspect the evidence. These are your checks, not an automated certification.