Find the source, then the version.
A nonprofit receives a file containing 12,000 donor records. One person can have several records. Removing unusable records and duplicates leaves 11,460 distinct people. Campaign copy must use that number and explain what it counts.
Connect the text to its source and identify versions affected by an update. The record below reconstructs that trail for the team to review.
Campaign preparation note
One figure, two versions.
For a nonprofit campaign, the team compares the incoming file, the preparation report and the draft. A number changes meaning depending on what it counts.
The updated source
Campaign preparation report · 4 September 2026
The file contains 12,000 donor records. Removing 300 unusable records and 240 duplicates leaves 11,460 distinct people.
The passage distinguishes the incoming volume from the contact count after preparation.
The draft to revise
Internal note · version 1, not approved
The database contains 12,000 distinct contacts.
This sentence confuses incoming rows with distinct people.
The review request
Campaign lead
Use the distinct contact count from the report. Do not describe them as people we are authorised to message.
Permissions and campaign criteria require a separate review.
The approved version
Internal note · version 2
The 12,000 donor records have been checked: 11,460 distinct people remain in the file.
The internal note keeps the figure approved by the team. Choosing recipients is a separate step.
The source, the correction and the decision stay together in the dossier.
Data comes before the message.
Before preparing an email, check who may receive it. A person can have a valid address and still have asked not to receive messages. To write a web page open to everyone, you only need the project documents, not a contact file.
| Donor records received | 12,000 |
|---|---|
| Invalid rows removed | 300 |
| Duplicates removed after validation | 240 |
| Distinct contacts retained | 11,460 |
| Objections, unusable addresses or undocumented permissions | 1,020 |
| Contacts available for review against campaign criteria | 10,440 |
| Contacts meeting the reactivation criteria | 1,842 |
| Pauses within this group | 412 |
| Contacts remaining for review | 1,430 |
In this example, pauses follow an internal rule: at least three known contact attempts within 21 days. This is not a legal threshold. Membership views and other campaigns cannot automatically be added to these totals.
An approved export remains a file entrusted to another tool. Downloading does not provide a way to revoke copies already handed over or control a message sent directly elsewhere.
An image is part of the message.
An image deserves the same review as a text. An illustration makes actions, relationships and an intention visible. Its caption explains what it represents without attributing an event or result that it does not document.
In a fundraising campaign, the team chooses what to make visible: a situation, an action, an established result. It checks usage rights and the accuracy of the caption. The dossier brings together the image, its provenance and review questions; the people publishing remain responsible for their choice.
Institutional work has its own context.
A research note, a legislative brief or a general public communication requires dated sources, clear responsibilities and reviews. The campaign dossier brings those elements together around the content being prepared.
Bring public information authorised for reuse and documents provided by the organisation into the dossier. The public nature of information does not remove the need to examine the conditions for processing it.
The scope described here excludes predicting opinions and tailoring political messages to individuals through personal characteristics. Those limits apply to the record itself, whether it belongs to a party, a charity, a brand or an agency.
Evidence for assessing value.
Writing a requirement on a page is not enough. A verifiable decision connects a specific version, its sources, the person reviewing it and their approval. Permissions and processing terms belong in the same record of responsibility.
Preparation time, errors encountered and the quality of returned information provide ways to assess the work. A publishable result states its source, observation period, limits and permission to present it.
Scope starts with the organisation’s work: what it prepares, with whom, in which tools and where coordination becomes difficult. That discussion provides a concrete basis for defining responsibilities, support and budget.
Return to the Résonance workflow