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 is wrong, 2 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 is why review deserves the time that polish does not: this is the step that teaches.

Marking up the draft

Open the Review & Train step. The mechanics are 2 moves:

Highlight and note

Select any passage and write an annotationAnnotationA note you leave on a draft saying what is off and why, instead of silently rewriting it. Annotations accumulate as pending feedback and fold into your writing profile when someone clicks **Update profile**. Annotating is what teaches the next draft; editing is not.: a note saying what is wrong with it, or what is right, since positive notes teach the agentAgentAn automated worker inside GrowthOS. Agents research your market, propose opportunities, write drafts, and score the pages you already have. Every agent stops at a proposal: nothing publishes and nothing moves forward until you review it and decide. (the automated worker that drafts) 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 1 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 needs to address: must-cover topics, reader questions, term suggestions. It is a checklist for your read, not homework; note what is genuinely missing and skip what is not.

How to annotate well

• Say why, not only what. "Too salesy for a comparison page" trains; "reword this" does not.
• Go after patterns. If the same tic appears 5 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 ProfileWriting profileThe compiled version of how you sound. Every draft starts from it, and it is the only place annotations become voice: pending feedback folds in when **Update profile** is clicked., the compiled version of how you sound.

A good rhythm: after a few reviewed articles, run an update. Watch the first drafts that follow: fewer notes needed on each is the trend line that shows the training landing, 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 click 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 1 article a month. If someone reviews weekly, give them a seat.

You are done when every passage you would have rewritten carries a note saying why, and the rewrite comes back reading like something your team could have drafted. 1 article reviewed this way is worth 5 skimmed.

Common questions

How long does a review take? 15–30 minutes for early articles, dropping as the profile converges. If reviews are not 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 edit the text directly instead of annotating? Not here, and it is deliberate: review is annotation-only so your fixes become signal instead of silent edits. The place for hand edits is Polish, one step later.