The brief is advice, not a control
Brand guidance in a document cannot stop a forbidden topic or unsupported claim from entering the approval queue.
Aboveboard for marketing teams
Move faster through review. Keep the controls that make review matter.
Aboveboard gives editors a shared brief, cited research, original or licensed visual options and platform-specific drafts. Reviewers see the prepared copy and selected media, enforce the same rules and decide what leaves the queue.
Separate drafting from approval, keep sources beside the copy and see the credit cost of each AI action while the team works.
- 2 roles
- drafting and approval stay separate
- 1 brief
- guides every platform version
- Visible
- sources, rules and credit use
The review bottleneck
A faster draft is not a faster team if the context disappears before review.
Most delays happen after the first draft: a claim needs evidence, the tone misses the brief or nobody is sure who has authority to publish.
Reviewers inherit a detective job
When sources and decisions live in different tools, checking one sentence means retracing the editor’s entire research path.
Publishing authority gets blurred
A shared login or a single broad role makes it difficult to let someone draft freely while keeping the final decision with the right reviewer.
Governance built into the work
Make the safe path the ordinary path.
The useful control is the one the team encounters while drafting and approving, not a policy they have to remember afterwards.
Rules checked during generation
Define unsupported claims, forbidden topics and voice requirements in the project brief so a conflicting draft can be held with a reason.
Evidence visible to the reviewer
Cited research stays with the draft, reducing the gap between the person who found the source and the person responsible for the claim.
Clear publishing authority
Editors can generate and revise. Reviewers make the publishing decision. The role boundary matches the actual responsibility.
After a campaign publishes, the team gets a dated growth story instead of a chart beside a post list: which content preceded each follower bump, how directly the platform supports that link, and which pattern — with its attribution method clearly labeled — should shape the next approved draft.
A shared operating loop
From campaign context to an accountable approval.
Each handoff carries the information the next person needs.
See the complete product workflow- 01
Review the project setup
Start from a website, brand document or supported public profile — or enter it manually — then review the proposed audience, voice, approved claims, restricted topics and campaign direction before saving.
Every supported suggestion keeps its source, quote and confidence in view. - 02
Research before making the claim
Use live research when a post needs external support and keep the selected sources attached to the working draft.
The reviewer can inspect the evidence in context. - 03
Draft for the destination
Prepare the idea in the format and length that suit each selected platform, while applying the same project rules.
The team can work across 9 connected platforms. - 04
Review under the right role
An editor revises the copy. A reviewer approves the version and chooses what is ready to schedule.
Drafting permission does not grant publishing permission. - 05
Read results back into the brief
Match a published post with the engagement it earned, then use that history to improve the next decision.
The feedback loop starts with observed results, not guesswork.
Controls the team can verify
Governance is a product behaviour, not a badge.
Aboveboard exposes the boundaries that matter to a marketing team and leaves outcome claims where they belong: outside the promise.
Role separation
Editors can work on drafts while reviewers retain the authority to approve and publish.
Enforced project rules
Off-limit topics and unsupported claims are evaluated during generation rather than left as a note beside the workflow.
Inspectable source trail
Research sources are shown alongside the draft so the team can verify what supports a factual statement.
Metering in the open
Every AI action has a published credit cost, and work stops at the limit instead of silently increasing the bill.
Aboveboard does not promise reach or engagement. It gives the team a more inspectable way to decide what should be published. Read the privacy policy (English)
Team questions
How control works in day-to-day publishing.
Need a plan-level answer? Compare the limits and credit allowances.
Can an editor draft content but be prevented from publishing it?
Yes. Drafting and approval are separate permissions. An editor can generate and revise, while a reviewer approves and publishes.
Can the brief block topics or claims?
Yes. The project brief can define forbidden topics and claims the organisation cannot support. A conflicting draft is held with the reason shown.
Where does a reviewer see the research?
Research runs return cited sources, and those citations travel with the draft into the approval queue.
Is our content used to train AI models?
No. Posts, drafts and brand briefs are not used to train models, and the model providers are contractually barred from training on the text sent to them.
What happens at the credit limit?
Generation stops and explains which limit was reached. Existing scheduled posts still publish, and the team can add credits or wait for the monthly reset.
Aboveboard for marketing teams
Give the team a faster draft and a firmer approval boundary.
Start with one project and one channel, then judge the workflow from brief to published result.