Use quality evidence to distinguish a safe warning from a publication blocker and understand exactly what the article report proves.

Quality settings

Word range, requested links, inline-image minimum and other dedicated settings also feed the final checks.

What the gate checks

The report evaluates the configured word range, usable section/headings structure, module coverage, requested and actual internal/external links, valid source URLs, media requirements, unresolved placeholders or prompt artefacts, repetition/duplication patterns, title/content consistency and final WordPress/SEO evidence. Some findings are blockers; others are warnings with an honest actual count.

Blockers versus warnings

• Blocker: a required condition fails. Auto-publish is prevented and the score is capped below the configured threshold.
• Warning: the article can remain usable but a target could not be met safely. Typical examples are fewer relevant internal links or verified sources than requested.

Do not lower the threshold to hide a blocker. Correct the cause, narrow the topic, repair settings or review the article editorially.

Article report fields

Reports can include topic, keyword, language, intent and angle; GSC/SERP state; word and section counts; selected modules; requested versus actual internal/external links; source evidence; media and errors; category; detected SEO provider; quality checks and score; sitemap evidence; and optional URL Inspection data.

Interpret requested versus actual

A request for four internal links is a target, not permission to insert irrelevant URLs. If only three valid destinations exist, the safe result is three plus a warning. The same principle applies to citations. A configured positive inline-image minimum is different: failing that required minimum is a blocker.

Safe publication workflow

1. Open the completed article report.
2. Resolve every blocker and understand every warning.
3. Open the WordPress Draft and check claims in context.
4. Test all links and inspect citations.
5. Review media placement, crop and alt text.
6. Confirm author, taxonomy, language, comments, SEO fields and canonical.
7. Preview desktop, tablet and mobile.
8. Publish or approve the scheduled workflow.

Manual edits and report limits

The report records generated output and pipeline evidence. Publisher 3.7.6 does not provide a universal “rerun full quality audit” button after arbitrary manual WordPress edits. A changed claim, deleted link or moved image therefore needs fresh human QA.

Common failures

• Below word minimum: check topic scope, provider limits and failed sections.
• Module/heading failure: inspect structure and additional instructions that may have forced a rigid outline.
• Invalid link/source: replace or remove it; do not keep a broken destination to satisfy count.
• Media blocker: meet the configured inline minimum or intentionally revise the image policy before a new job.
• Unresolved marker: remove placeholders and verify surrounding text.
• Low score without obvious error: read individual checks rather than the aggregate score alone.

Verification checklist

• No blocker remains.
• Warnings have an explicit editorial decision.
• Requested/actual counts are understood.
• The WordPress post still matches the report after edits.
• Automatic publication is used only for quality-ready content.

Related guides

Live Pipeline · SEO and links · WordPress article review

Quality approval before native scheduling

In Publisher 3.7.6, Auto publish converts an article to a native WordPress Scheduled post only after the job reaches the automation-ready, quality-approved state and the article is reserved to one future slot. A blocker keeps the post out of the future publication path.