5.3 · Reviewing and editing

Review is the step where GrowthOS earns compound interest on your time. When you highlight a passage and say what's wrong, two things happen: this draft gets rewritten with your note applied, and your voice notes: tone, formatting, and what's-right positives: become training signal for every draft after. Same minute of effort, paid out twice. That's why review deserves the time that polish doesn't: this is the step that teaches.

Marking up the draft

Open the Review & Train step. The mechanics are two moves:

Highlight and note

Select any passage and write what's wrong with it, or what's right: positive notes teach the agent what to do more of. After you write the note, the popover's Optional section lets you set the type of feedback (Accuracy, Linking, Formatting, Tone, Positive, Other) and then a severity. Both are optional, but types make the training signal sharper, so set them when the categorization is obvious.

Rewrite with Feedback

When your pass is done, click Rewrite with Feedback. Add an overall direction if the draft needs steering beyond the individual notes, and optionally have it fix coverage gaps in the same pass. The agent rewrites in about a minute, applying your notes. Once you run the rewrite, the article moves on to the Polish stage.

The coverage rail alongside the draft shows what the page should address: must-cover topics, reader questions, term suggestions. It's a checklist for your read, not homework; note what's genuinely missing and skip what isn't.

How to annotate well

• Say why, not just what. "Too salesy for a comparison page" trains; "reword this" doesn't.
• Go after patterns. If the same tic appears five times, annotate it once and name it as a pattern. The rewrite applies it everywhere, and so does the training.
• Accuracy notes are gold. They often reveal a context gap; fix big ones in Context too, so they stay fixed.

The training half of the loop

Notes fix drafts immediately, and they accumulate as pending feedback for your Writing Profile. They fold into the profile when someone clicks Update Profile in the Writing Profile area, which is a deliberate click, not a background process. A good rhythm: after a few reviewed articles, run an update. Watch the first drafts that follow; they should arrive needing visibly fewer notes. That trend line is the whole promise of the system, and reviewing is how you bend it.

Bringing in teammates

The Invite feedback step adds reviewers without adding seats:

• Share a public link: generates a URL you can drop in Slack. Anyone with the link can annotate, no login.
• Invite a specific person: by email, optionally with the invite mailed for you.

Guest reviewers see the draft, highlight, and note, using the same annotation tools you do, then send their review. Their notes come back to this step, where you stay in control: select which reviews deserve applying and Rewrite from Feedback. The agent rewrites the sections those reviews touch and saves the result as a new version, with your current version kept for comparison or rollback.

This is the right tool for the subject-matter expert who reviews one article a month. If someone reviews weekly, give them a seat.

Sharing doesn't stop at your own notes. Two steps on, Invite feedback is where you share the draft with teammates or outside reviewers via magic link; they annotate the same way you just did, and their notes come back through this same review flow.

You're done when every passage you'd have rewritten carries a note saying why, and the rewrite comes back reading like something your team could have drafted. One article reviewed this way is worth five skimmed.

Common questions

How long should a review take? Fifteen to thirty minutes for early articles, dropping as the profile converges. If reviews aren't getting faster after several cycles plus profile updates, the notes may be too vague to train on: more why, fewer rewordings.

Do guest annotations train the system too? They join the same feedback stream. You decide which reviews get applied to the draft; what trains the profile follows the same rule as your own notes: tone, formatting and positive annotations on completed reviews.

Can I just edit the text directly instead of annotating? Not here, and it's deliberate: review is annotation-only so your fixes become signal instead of silent edits. The place for hand edits is Polish, one step later.