managing-editor

Managing Editor Skill

Overview

The Managing Editor is the air-traffic controller for the entire newsroom workflow. This skill orchestrates:

• Session management (workspace cleanup, file organization)
• TODO/tracker management (agile-style progress, red-green-refactor mindset)
• Human escalation protocol (CAPTCHA, logins, physical records → HUMAN_DO_THIS.md)
• Pivot protocol (blocked on investigation A? switch to investigation B)
• Archive protection (never delete intermediate drafts with unmined data)
• Cross-desk coordination (sequencing skills in the right order)
• Investigation prioritization (which story next?)

This is the meta-level orchestration that keeps newsroom operations smooth and prevents bottlenecks.

---

Session Management & Workspace Cleanup

Canonical Workspace Structure

There is one workspace layout, shared with ../investigative-journalist/evidence-preservation-protocol.md. Every investigation session is built around a master-file.json (conforming to ../investigative-journalist/schemas/master-file.schema.json) and the three discipline directories: write-once evidence/, derived working/, and versioned drafts/. Do not invent a parallel folder scheme.

newsroom-workspace/
├── sessions/
│   ├── 2026-06-01-procurement-investigation/
│   │   ├── master-file.json        ← canonical state (entities, evidence, claims, collection_log)
│   │   ├── evidence/               ← WRITE-ONCE originals, named by DOC id; never modified or deleted
│   │   │   ├── DOC-001-city-council-minutes.pdf
│   │   │   └── DOC-002-procurement-policy.pdf
│   │   ├── working/                ← derived copies: OCR text, cleaned CSVs, SQL, analysis (cite source DOC id)
│   │   │   ├── contracts-2020-2024.cleaned.csv
│   │   │   └── vendor-analysis.sql
│   │   ├── drafts/                 ← immutable versioned drafts; new revision = new file
│   │   │   ├── 2026-06-08-part-1-v1.md
│   │   │   └── 2026-06-10-part-1-v2.md
│   │   ├── assets/                 ← images, charts (with alt text + source attribution)
│   │   ├── TODO.md
│   │   └── README.md
│   └── [archived investigations — retained intact under legal hold...]
├── templates/
└── ACTIVE_INVESTIGATIONS.md

The legacy sources/ and data/ folders are superseded: originals live in evidence/, everything derived lives in working/. The append-only collection_log[] inside master-file.json replaces ad-hoc FOIA-response-log.md / NOTES.md provenance notes (those may remain as human-readable scratch, but the log is authoritative).

Session Cleanup Checklist

Before archiving a completed investigation:

• All article drafts saved (at least 3 versions: draft, copy-reviewed, final)
• All source documents archived (PDFs, CSVs, database exports—never delete)
• All data queries saved (SQL files, notebooks, analysis scripts)
• Chain of custody documented (for legal defense if needed)
• Images/assets organized (with alt text and source attribution)
• Investigation README updated (summary of what was found, what wasn't)
• Version control committed (git commit with full session history)

Never delete:

• Raw data files (CSVs, PDFs, exports)
• Intermediate analysis (even if superseded)
• Email threads with sources
• Meeting notes or interview recordings
• Failed queries or approaches (shows rigor)

---

TODO Management (Red-Green-Refactor Cycle)

Borrow the TDD (test-driven development) mindset: Red → Green → Refactor.

Red Phase: Write the Investigation

Status: RED (work-in-progress, not publishable)

# Investigation: Procurement Breakdown

## TODO (Red Phase)

### Part 1: How One Vendor Got 94%
- [ ] Request FOIA: City contracts 2020–2024 *(DUE: March 10)*
- [ ] Receive and parse FOIA response *(DUE: March 25)*
- [ ] Build spreadsheet analyzing vendor concentration *(DUE: March 28)*
- [ ] Write draft article *(DUE: April 1)*
- [ ] Interview city procurement officer *(DUE: March 31)*
- [ ] Interview city council member *(DUE: March 31)*
- [ ] Get official response from mayor *(DUE: April 1)*

### Part 2: City Council Ignored Rules
- [ ] Obtain city procurement policy *(BLOCKED: waiting on Part 1 FOIA)*
- [ ] Cross-reference policy with actual awards *(BLOCKED)*
- [ ] Interview audit officer *(BLOCKED)*
- [ ] Write draft *(BLOCKED)*

### Part 3: Audit Trail Missing
- [ ] Request audit records via FOIA *(BLOCKED)*
- [ ] Obtain decision-making documents *(BLOCKED)*

## Status: RED
- Multiple blockers on Parts 2 & 3 (depend on Part 1 FOIA)
- Part 1 draft ready for copy-review (3/28)
- No legal review yet

Green Phase: Pass Copy & Legal Review

Status: GREEN (technically ready, awaiting publication)

## TODO (Green Phase)

### Part 1: Ready for Final Checkpoints
- [x] Draft written
- [x] Copy review passed
- [ ] Final legal review *(DUE: April 1)*
- [ ] Social hooks drafted *(DUE: March 31)*
- [ ] Images prepared *(DUE: March 31)*
- [ ] Metadata complete *(DUE: April 1)*
- [ ] Deploy to production *(DUE: April 1 at 10 AM)*

### Part 2: Copy Review Passed, Awaiting Legal
- [x] Draft written
- [x] Copy review passed
- [ ] Final legal review *(DUE: April 2)*

### Part 3: Draft Complete, Awaiting Copy
- [x] Draft written
- [ ] Copy review *(DUE: April 3)*
- [ ] Final legal review *(DUE: April 3)*

## Status: GREEN (Part 1 ready; Parts 2 & 3 in pipeline)

Refactor Phase: Post-Publication Learning

Status: REFACTOR (published; improve for next series)

## TODO (Refactor Phase)

### Learning from This Investigation
- [ ] Document what worked (FOIA timeline, interview strategy)
- [ ] Document what was slow (database queries, source tracking)
- [ ] Collect feedback from reporters and editors
- [ ] Update investigation templates based on lessons
- [ ] Archive all intermediate work (for legal defense)
- [ ] Create "playbook" for similar future investigations

## Metrics
- Time from FOIA request to publication: 47 days
- Number of sources interviewed: 9
- Traffic to Part 1 article: 12,400 views
- Social media engagement: 3,400 shares
- Reader corrections/complaints: 0

## Next Investigation
- Water contamination in county (ready to start March 15)

---

TODO Format

Use a simple, scannable format:

## Investigation: [Name]

### Current Status
- **RED / GREEN / REFACTOR**
- **Blockers:** [List blocking issues]
- **ETA to publication:** [Date]
- **Last updated:** [Date]

### Tasks (by article part)

#### Part 1: [Title]
- [x] Task completed
- [ ] Task pending (DUE: DATE)
- [ ] BLOCKED: Waiting for [blocker]
- [ ] ESCALATED: Requires human action in HUMAN_DO_THIS.md

#### Part 2: [Title]
- [ ] Task pending
- [ ] BLOCKED: Waiting for Part 1 FOIA response

### Blockers & Escalations
1. **FOIA delay** (city slow to respond to records request)
   - Escalated to managing editor; considering legal pressure
   - ETA: March 25

2. **Source unavailable** (procurement officer on leave)
   - Escalated; trying to reach alternative official
   - ETA: April 1

### Archive
- [x] All source documents saved
- [ ] All drafts versioned in git
- [ ] Chain of custody documented
- [ ] Final article published

---

HUMAN_DO_THIS.md Protocol

When an investigation hits a hard blocker (CAPTCHA, login requirement, physical records, manual phone call), document it in HUMAN_DO_THIS.md instead of stalling.

HUMAN_DO_THIS.md Structure

# Tasks Requiring Human Intervention

## Active Blockers

### BLOCKER 1: Paywall Access (Procurement Investigation)
**Investigation:** Procurement Breakdown (Part 2)
**Requirement:** Access city's document system to retrieve audit records
**Blocker Type:** Login/authentication required

**What needs to happen:**
1. Log into city's document portal (requires city employee credentials)
2. Download audit records for procurement decisions (2020–2024)
3. Save to: newsroom-workspace/2026-04-01-procurement-investigation/evidence/

**Why I can't do it:**
- Requires city employee login
- No newsroom employee has city credentials
- Portal may detect API/automated access

**Who should do it:**
- City employee contact: Jane Doe ([email protected])
- Or: Request via FOIA if public records

**Deadline:** April 1 (needed for Part 2)
**Status:** Pending human action

---

### BLOCKER 2: CAPTCHA on Government Website (Water Investigation)
**Investigation:** Water Contamination Study
**Requirement:** Download water quality reports from state environmental agency
**Blocker Type:** CAPTCHA blocking automated access

**What needs to happen:**
1. Visit: https://waterquality.state.gov/reports
2. Search for: "Contaminant levels by county 2024"
3. Download CSV (or screenshot if not downloadable)
4. Save to: newsroom-workspace/2026-03-15-water-contamination/evidence/

**Why I can't do it:**
- CAPTCHA prevents bot/automated access
- Manual human click required

**Who should do it:**
- Any newsroom staff (2 min task)

**Deadline:** ASAP (blocking data analysis)
**Status:** Pending human action

---

### BLOCKER 3: Restricted Document Access (City Council Records)
**Investigation:** Procurement Breakdown (Part 3)
**Requirement:** Access sealed city council executive session minutes
**Blocker Type:** Physical/restricted access required

**What needs to happen:**
1. Contact city clerk: John Smith ([email protected], 555-1234)
2. Request unsealing of executive session minutes from 2022–2024
3. If approved, pick up documents at city hall OR request email delivery
4. Scan and save to: newsroom-workspace/2026-04-01-procurement-investigation/evidence/

**Why I can't do it:**
- Sealed records require legal authority/request
- Requires phone call or in-person visit
- Decision is subjective (city clerk may deny or require legal pressure)

**Who should do it:**
- Managing editor or reporter Alice
- May need attorney to send formal request

**Deadline:** April 2 (for Part 3)
**Status:** Pending human action

---

## Completed (Archive)

### ✓ COMPLETED: FOIA Request (Procurement Investigation)
- Requested: March 1
- Received: March 25
- Downloaded and saved to: sources/FOIA-contracts-2020-2024.csv
- Status: Archive complete

HUMAN_DO_THIS.md Workflow

1. Reporter hits blocker → "This requires a login I don't have"
2. Reporter documents in HUMAN_DO_THIS.md:
   • What's blocking?
   • Why can't the system do it?
   • Exactly what needs to happen?
   • Who should do it?
   • Deadline?
3. Managing editor reviews daily → Assigns human tasks
4. Human completes task → Updates HUMAN_DO_THIS.md ("✓ COMPLETED")
5. Workflow unblocked → System continues

Key principle: Escalation is not failure. It's tactical deferral—move on to the next task while humans handle the manual work.

---

Pivot Protocol (Blocked → Next Investigation)

When investigation A hits a blocker with no clear ETA, pivot to investigation B instead of stalling.

When to Pivot

Investigation A: FOIA request pending (ETA unknown)
  Reporter Bob: "Nothing to do until city responds"

Decision: PIVOT
  → Pause Investigation A
  → Start Investigation B (water contamination; no blockers)
  → Revisit Investigation A when FOIA arrives

Pivot Workflow

1. Identify blocker (FOIA delay, source unavailable, etc.)
2. Check ETA (Is ETA >1 week away? Pivot candidate.)
3. Check pipeline (Any other investigations ready to start?)
4. Pause investigation A (document in TODO: "PAUSED—waiting for FOIA")
5. Start investigation B (fresh reporter or same reporter on new story)
6. Monitor A's status (check in daily; resume when unblocked)

Parallel Investigations

Maintain a pipeline of active investigations so reporters always have something to work on:

ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS (priority order)

1. Procurement Breakdown (Part 1: READY FOR PUBLICATION)
   Status: GREEN—awaiting legal review
   Priority: URGENT (publish April 1)

2. Water Contamination Study (Data analysis phase)
   Status: GREEN—FOIA received; analyzing now
   Priority: HIGH (publish April 15)

3. Housing Discrimination Investigation (Research phase)
   Status: RED—interviewing sources
   Priority: MEDIUM (publish May 1)

4. School Budget Audit (Planning phase)
   Status: RED—just started
   Priority: MEDIUM (publish May 15)

## Reporters' Workflow
- Alice: Procurement (Part 1 final edits)
- Bob: Water contamination (data analysis)
- Carol: Housing discrimination (interviews)
- Dan: School budget (research) — if needed

Pivot Rules

• Never delete work from investigation A (archive it; pause the TODO)
• Don't start >3 major investigations simultaneously (too much chaos)
• Pivot every 1–2 weeks (keep momentum; prevent stalling on single story)
• Communicate pivots to reporter ("We're pausing Proc for 2 weeks; focus on Water")

---

Archive Protection & Legal Hold

NEVER delete intermediate work. Your archive is your legal defense.

You Are the Legal-Hold Authority

investigation.legal_hold defaults to true and stays true through publication and the limitations period after. The evidence-preservation-protocol routes every deletion request to you — agents are instructed never to delete unilaterally while a hold is active. When such a request reaches you:

1. Do not approve deletion to "clean up," because a story was killed, or because the material turned out to be wrong. A killed or disproven story is archived intact — being wrong and able to show your work is a defense; an empty folder is consciousness of guilt.
2. Legitimate reasons to lift a hold are narrow — e.g., a legal-counsel-directed source-protection redaction, or a retention period that has fully expired. These are counsel decisions, not editorial ones. Flag them to legal (see Escalation Triggers) and record the decision in collection_log[] as a correction/log-amendment entry; never silently delete.
3. Tamper check: if any file in evidence/ no longer matches its recorded SHA-256 hash, treat it as a chain-of-custody incident — freeze the session and escalate immediately.

Verify Preservation at Every Desk Handoff

Run the evidence-preservation-protocol handoff checklist before accepting work from one desk into the next: every DOC item has a local copy + hash (+ archive URL if web-sourced), every claim cited in the current draft has a cited-in-draft log entry, and nothing has been deleted.

What to Archive (Never Delete)

Investigation Folder (canonical layout):
├── master-file.json             ← canonical state + append-only collection_log
├── evidence/                    ← WRITE-ONCE originals (never modified or deleted)
│   ├── DOC-001-FOIA-response-2026-03-25.pdf  ← Original source, hashed at intake
│   ├── DOC-002-city-council-minutes.pdf      ← Archived webpage + archive.today URL in custody
│   ├── DOC-010-alice-interview-transcript.txt ← Interview transcript (dated, contemporaneous)
│   ├── DOC-011-bob-interview-audio.mp3        ← Preserved as-is
│   └── DOC-020-email-thread-with-city.mbox    ← Complete correspondence
├── working/                     ← derived only; each cites its source DOC id
│   ├── cleaned-data.csv         ← Processing steps (raw lives in evidence/)
│   ├── queries.sql              ← All analysis queries
│   └── failed-queries.sql       ← Show rigor (what didn't work)
├── drafts/                      ← immutable versions; new revision = new file
│   ├── part-1-v1.md
│   ├── part-1-copy-reviewed.md
│   └── part-1-final.md
└── README.md                    ← summary; what was found; points to collection_log for chain of custody

Why Archive Matters

If article is challenged:

Lawyer: "Do you have evidence the mayor received that payment?"

You (with archive): "Yes. Here's the bank transfer (2020-06-15). Here's the FEC disclosure showing it wasn't reported. Here's the contract awarded two weeks later. Here's the query that found 0 other vendors solicited. All documented. Chain of custody shown."

You (without archive): "Uh... the reporter said they saw it, but I don't have the records anymore."

---

Cross-Desk Coordination

Not every investigation is solo. Coordinate across reporters and editors:

Skill Sequencing (The Correct Order)

Investigation Launch → Data Archivist
   ↓
   Data Archivist creates schema, ingests FOIA data
   ↓
Data Queries → Reporter drafts article
   ↓
Copy Review → Copy editor checks readability/SEO/accessibility
   ↓
Final Editor Review → Editor checks libel/facts/verification
   ↓
Social Distributor → Marketing hooks drafted (before publication)
   ↓
Publish Article → Article goes live
   ↓
Social Distributor (continued) → Posts to all platforms
   ↓
Managing Editor → Archive verification; mark investigation COMPLETE

Bad Sequencing (What NOT to do)

Reporter writes article (no data analysis)
   ↓
Social Media posts before copy-review
   ↓
Publish Article (before legal review)
   ↓
Realize article has fact errors
   ↓
Panic; roll back; damage control

Skill Dependencies

Skill	Depends On	Input	Output
Data Archivist	Investigation needs data	FOIA dumps, CSVs, PDFs	Database schema, cleaned data, queries
Reporter (Writing)	Data Archivist complete	Data queries, interviews, documents	Article draft
Copy Review	Draft article exists	Readability, SEO, accessibility	Copy-reviewed draft
Final Editor Review	Copy review complete	Libel risk, fact verification	Legal greenlight
Social Distributor	Legal greenlight obtained	Article text + imagery	Social hooks, OpenGraph metadata
Publish Article	All reviews complete	Final article + metadata	Live article + verification
Managing Editor	Publication complete	All work products	Archive + metrics

Coordination Template

# Cross-Desk Coordination (Procurement Investigation)

## Workflow Timeline

| Phase | Owner | Deadline | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data ingestion (FOIA → schema) | Alice (Data Archivist) | March 15 | ✓ Complete |
| Data analysis (queries) | Alice | March 20 | ✓ Complete |
| Article writing (Part 1) | Bob (Reporter) | March 28 | ✓ Complete |
| Copy review | Carol (Copy Editor) | March 30 | ⧳ In progress |
| Legal review | Dan (Editor-in-Chief) | April 1 | ◦ Pending |
| Social hooks | Carol (Social Distributor) | April 1 | ◦ Pending |
| Deployment | Alice (Tech) | April 1 10 AM | ◦ Pending |

## Handoff Checklist

- [ ] Data Archivist → Reporter: queries, analysis summary
- [ ] Reporter → Copy Editor: final draft, sources list
- [ ] Copy Editor → Final Editor: copy-reviewed draft, notes
- [ ] Final Editor → Social Distributor: approved article, image assets
- [ ] Social Distributor → Tech: social hooks, metadata
- [ ] Tech → Managing Editor: published article confirmation

---

Investigation Prioritization

Priority Matrix

Decide which investigation to start based on:

             Impact (readers affected)
                    ↑
            URGENT  |  HIGH
             ·····················
    |High ·       · Medium         ·
    |    ·       ·                 ·
    |    ·   START THIS           ·
Ready ·    ·                       ·
      |    ·    MEDIUM   ·    LOW  ·
      |    ·             ·        ·
      |    ·    BACKLOG  ·        ·
      ↓─────────────────────────────→
            Effort (time/resources)

URGENT + READY = Start immediately
HIGH + READY = Start next
MEDIUM = Backlog
LOW = Consider; may not pursue

Example Priority Assessment

Investigation	Impact	Effort	Status	Priority	Start
Procurement (city contracts)	HIGH (taxpayer concern)	MEDIUM (data-heavy)	READY (FOIA in)	URGENT	Now
Water contamination	HIGH (health concern)	HIGH (field testing)	BLOCKED (waiting on lab)	HIGH	In 2 weeks
Housing discrimination	MEDIUM (specific community)	MEDIUM (interviews)	READY (sources lined up)	MEDIUM	In 4 weeks
School budget waste	LOW (technical/boring)	MEDIUM (audit records)	READY	LOW	Archive

---

Daily Managing Editor Check-In

Morning ritual (10 min):

# Daily Status Check (April 2, 2026)

## Investigations Status
- [ ] Procurement (Part 1): PUBLISHED ✓ | Part 2: Copy review in progress
- [ ] Water: Data analysis on track | No blockers
- [ ] Housing: Interview scheduled for today at 2 PM
- [ ] School: Awaiting school district response (ETA: April 5)

## Blockers & Escalations
- [ ] Review HUMAN_DO_THIS.md (any new escalations?)
- [ ] Check FOIA status (any responses?)
- [ ] Follow up on source callbacks

## Upcoming Deadlines
- Part 2 copy review: Due EOD April 2
- Part 2 legal review: Due April 3
- Water article draft: Due April 5
- Housing interviews: Due April 8

## Action Items
- [ ] Email city clerk re: Part 3 audit trail access
- [ ] Call school district re: budget documents
- [ ] Remind Bob (reporter) of April 5 deadline

---

Common Mistakes & Red Flags

Management Mistakes

Mistake	Why It's Bad	Fix
No TODO tracking; work ad-hoc	Tasks slip; deadlines missed; unclear who's doing what	Create central TODO.md; update daily
Delete old drafts to "clean up"	Lose chain of custody; can't defend published claims	Never delete; archive everything
Start 5 investigations simultaneously	Chaos; reporters overwhelmed; nothing ships	Limit to 3 active; pivot when blocked
No pivot protocol; stall on single FOIA	Reporters sit idle; momentum dies	Pivot to other story; come back when FOIA arrives
Forget about escalated task in HUMAN_DO_THIS.md	Task never completes; investigation stalls	Review HUMAN_DO_THIS.md daily
Publish article, forget social marketing	Low traffic; article doesn't reach audience	Social distribution is part of workflow

Coordination Mistakes

Mistake	Why It's Bad	Fix
Reporter writes article before data is analyzed	Analysis shows article was wrong; massive rewrite	Enforce skill sequencing; data first, writing second
Social hooks posted before legal review	Misleading hook; legal liability	Legal review before social marketing
Publish without updating landing page/index	Readers can't find article; low traffic	Publishing includes index updates
No handoff protocol between desks	Work repeats; miscommunication; quality drops	Require explicit handoff checklist between phases

---

Escalation Triggers

Escalate to publisher/legal if:

• Article makes criminal allegation (bribery, embezzlement, fraud)
• Source demands anonymity but has liability (whistleblower, insider)
• Investigation uncovers regulatory violation (safety, environmental)
• Legal threat received (cease-and-desist, lawsuit threat)
• Subject demands to see article before publication
• Fact-check reveals major error post-publication
• Any request to delete, redact, or alter material under legal hold (route to counsel; never action unilaterally)
• Evidence file fails its hash check (possible tampering or corruption)
• Subject or audience sits under a truth-burden libel regime (UK/Commonwealth) — confirm claims are affirmatively provable, not just defensible

---

Metrics & Learning

After each investigation, measure:

investigation:
  name: "Procurement Breakdown"
  published: "2026-04-01 to 2026-04-03"

metrics:
  timeline:
    start_date: "2026-02-01"
    publication_date: "2026-04-01"
    duration_weeks: 8
    bottleneck: "FOIA response (3 week delay)"

  resources:
    reporters: 1
    editors: 2
    time_investment_hours: 240

  reach:
    article_views: 12400  # Part 1
    social_shares: 3400
    newsletter_signups: 210
    reader_complaints: 0

  quality:
    corrections_needed: 0
    legal_challenges: 0
    source_complaints: 0

learning:
  what_worked: "FOIA strategy was efficient; interviews were credible"
  what_was_slow: "Database queries took longer than expected"
  next_time: "Start data analysis immediately after FOIA filing; don't wait for response"

---

Managing Editor Checklist

Before marking investigation complete:

• All article drafts archived (versions saved)
• All source documents saved (FOIA, interviews, images)
• Chain of custody documented (provenance clear)
• Data queries saved (SQL, notebooks, results)
• Metrics collected (views, engagement, corrections)
• Lessons documented (what went well? what to improve?)
• Investigation marked COMPLETE in TODO
• Next investigation ready to start (pipeline maintained)