Last verified: September 10, 2026
What You Can Now Do
Context Memo now attaches two named roles to every memo, author and editor, and carries both from your internal feed through to the published page. Where a memo used to show a single anonymous "last updated" date, it now shows who wrote the substance and who reviewed it before publication. That changes one specific task: review routing. When a scan surfaces a gap in your pricing memo or stale language in your security memo, you no longer poll the team to find out whose document it is. Ownership becomes a list you can read instead of a question you have to ask.
Where It Is in Context Memo
Attribution lives with the memo record. Each memo in the internal feed displays its author and editor next to the title, and both fields are set from the memo itself rather than from a separate settings area. On publish, the two roles render into the page's JSON-LD, the structured-data format most crawlers parse most reliably, using the distinct author and editor properties that schema.org has defined for years. Same memo, two readers: your team in the feed, retrieval systems in the markup.
How to Use It
- Open a memo from the feed and set the Author to the person who wrote the substance of the document. The feed row updates to show the name in place of an anonymous timestamp.
- Set the Editor to whoever reviewed and approved the final language. These are separate roles by design, because the person who drafted the competitive positioning is rarely the person who signed off on it.
- Publish or republish the memo to your domain. The
authorandeditorvalues are written into the page's JSON-LD alongside your existing Article and FAQ markup. - Confirm the output by viewing the published page's structured data. You should see two named roles, not one combined field. If a memo publishes without them, the fields were left blank on the record.
- Work through the existing library in feed order and assign both roles to memos published before this change. The result is a document-by-document ownership record you can hand to leadership or use to assign revision work.
Why We Built It
Marketing leads at B2B software companies described the same failure to us repeatedly: leadership spot-checks a few published pages, declares coverage fine, and the team has no artifact to point at showing who owns which gap. Past a few dozen memos, ownership stops being answerable from memory, and revision cycles stall while someone reconstructs who wrote a paragraph and who approved it. The second cost was quieter. Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines have long treated identifiable authorship and clear responsibility for content as inputs to experience and trustworthiness assessment, and provenance is one of the concrete things a retrieval system can attach trust to. Leaving that field empty on a memo library built for machine consumption was a signal we were choosing not to send.
What It Does Not Do Yet
- Assignment is per memo. There is no bulk backfill, so memos published before this change need a manual pass through the feed.
- The model supports two roles. It does not store a full contributor chain, revision-by-revision history, or multiple co-authors on a single memo.
- Named attribution is a provenance signal, not a guarantee. It gives crawlers and models something concrete to evaluate; it does not on its own move a citation, and you should still read your scan results to see what changed.
- This is attribution metadata, not an approval workflow. Context Memo does not gate publishing on editor sign-off, and it is not a replacement for a CMS or a marketing automation platform, which handle permissions and staged review far more thoroughly. Use your existing review process to decide who approves, then record the outcome here.
One practical note on sequencing: if your team has no named owner for a memo, that is worth resolving before you assign someone by default. A wrong name in the author field is a worse provenance signal than a blank one, because it publishes a claim about responsibility that nobody on your team would stand behind.
