An existing page can contain useful copy alongside details that have changed. Norml builds a content-refresh workflow that compares selected WordPress pages with your approved source material and proposes specific revisions. Editors see the current text, suggested changes and supporting evidence together. The published page stays in place while the revision is reviewed.
The scope covers evidence selection and revision generation for existing content. We map WordPress fields before writing and choose a staging or external draft route that preserves the currently published page.
Identify the source for product details, service scope, policies and other changeable statements. A date or declining traffic can prompt a review, but neither proves a sentence is wrong. Unsupported sections are flagged for an editor rather than rewritten on assumption.
Produce proposed text beside the original section and cite the supplied evidence. Preserve approved messaging, useful links and calls to action. The editor can accept a factual correction without accepting unrelated changes to tone or structure.
Record the source and page version used for the draft. Compare the current page before writing so a newer editor change triggers a conflict. Save the previous content, verify the approved fields after the update and expose any partial failure.
Provide the documents or records that establish the facts. Assign an owner when sources disagree or have no date. Model knowledge alone is not the authority for prices, availability, claims or company policy.
Confirm the posts, pages and custom fields in scope. The REST API supports core content, but page-builder data, custom blocks and plugin metadata need site-specific validation. Access is limited to the selected read and write operations.
Name the editor and publication owner. Agree where drafts live, how approvals are recorded and how the earlier page content is restored. Existing WordPress revisions help with history where enabled; they are not a universal pending-edit workflow.
Choose a page with a known outdated statement. Check its field structure, source documents and approval path before defining the revision rules.
Generate a proposed revision using approved material, then inspect the changed sections and unresolved facts with the editor. Adjust the rules using rejected edits as examples.
Test a competing editor change and a failed write before release. Read back the saved content, check links and formatting, and hand over the recovery procedure.