Step 1: define a learning purpose and an inference ceiling

Write the reader question, intended use, audience, publication channels, timeframe, and the strongest conclusion the design could support. Decide whether the case illustrates a process, a boundary, a failure, a subjective experience, or a measured change. Avoid setting a target claim such as “prove the product works.”

List conclusions the case cannot establish: population prevalence, scientific causation, typical results, or future performance unless a suitable design and evidence support them. Assign an editorial owner and specialist reviewers for consequential subjects.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; Society of Professional Journalists; U.S. Office of Management and Budget / Performance.gov

Steps 2 and 3: document selection and obtain appropriate permission

Step 2 records eligibility, invitation, response, incentive, decline, exclusion, and why this subject was selected. Include unsuccessful or mixed cases when the decision job requires them. Step 3 explains participation, media, identifiers, sensitive topics, editing, commercial use, reuse, duration, withdrawal, confidentiality limits, and any effect on service.

Use the consent or permission process required by law, contract, platform, and context. HHS OHRP guidance governs regulated research in its scope; do not present its process as universal marketing compliance. Obtain qualified privacy and legal review.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections; U.S. Federal Trade Commission; Society of Professional Journalists

Steps 4 and 5: minimize data and establish the baseline

Step 4 identifies necessary personal, business, operational, and outcome data, access controls, retention, redaction, and deletion. Separate the private source file from the public case. Step 5 records starting conditions, objective, product or service version, environment, resources, prior attempts, constraints, and relevant dates.

Do not collect sensitive detail merely to make the story dramatic. Verify records with the subject where appropriate and label self-report, system record, document, estimate, and interpretation. Missing baseline data should remain visible.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections; Society of Professional Journalists

Steps 6 and 7: trace the intervention and define outcomes

Step 6 documents what changed, who acted, support received, timing, adherence, deviations, external events, and costs or effort. Step 7 predefines outcome measures or questions, source, calculation, window, uncertainty, and qualitative context. Preserve mixed and negative evidence rather than selecting only improvement.

Do not imply direct testing when the publisher only interviewed the subject. A reported experience can be valuable when accurately labeled. Health, financial, safety, earnings, or other consequential claims need appropriate scientific, subject-matter, and legal review.

Version and timeline fixed.

Customer and vendor actions separated.

Outcome source and window defined.

Contradictions retained.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Office of Management and Budget / Performance.gov

Steps 8 and 9: draft with attribution limits and an edit log

Step 8 separates chronology, observation, participant interpretation, publisher analysis, and unresolved alternative explanations. State material relationship, selection context, unusual support, and non-transferable conditions. Step 9 preserves original quotes and media, then logs shortening, translation, anonymization, composite treatment, visual alteration, and headline changes.

Do not convert a possibility into causation or one result into typicality. Keep disclosure near the claim it changes. If a synthetic reconstruction or composite is used, label it so readers do not mistake it for a single real customer's experience.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; Society of Professional Journalists

Step 10: review, publish, follow up, and correct

Give the participant an appropriate opportunity to check factual accuracy and sensitive context without granting a hidden right to demand favorable editorial conclusions. Complete legal, privacy, evidence, commercial-relationship, and accessibility review. Bind approval to the exact version and inventory every reuse.

Set follow-up points that match the claimed duration and a recheck no later than 2027-02-10. Correct material errors, update changed outcomes, honor applicable withdrawal commitments, and propagate changes. OMB Section 280 contributes a U.S. federal framework for feedback levels; it is not a private-sector mandate.

  • Factual review separated from editorial control.
  • Private evidence separated from public copy.
  • Publication locations inventoried.
  • Follow-up question matches inference.
  • Correction and withdrawal owners assigned.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections; U.S. Federal Trade Commission; Society of Professional Journalists; U.S. Office of Management and Budget / Performance.gov

Sources and further reading

These references informed this article. A source supports a claim; it does not imply endorsement of TenMultigure or any future product reference.

  1. Informed Consent FAQsU.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections · Accessed August 10, 2026

    Used with an explicit scope limit as a high-standard process reference for meaningful informed consent and documentation in regulated research.

  2. The Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule: Questions and AnswersU.S. Federal Trade Commission · Accessed August 10, 2026

    Guides U.S.-context checks for testimonial authenticity, incentives, insider relationships, suppression, and false or synthetic depictions.

  3. SPJ Code of EthicsSociety of Professional Journalists · Accessed August 10, 2026

    Adds independent principles for minimizing harm, managing conflicts, preserving accountability, and correcting the record throughout the workflow.

  4. Section 280 — Managing Customer ExperienceU.S. Office of Management and Budget / Performance.gov · Accessed August 10, 2026

    Provides a U.S. federal reference for transaction, journey, and relationship feedback levels used to plan questions and follow-up.

Reviewed for clarity and evidence

Reviewed by TenMultigure Editorial Team. See an error or a source that has changed? Tell the editorial team.

Review method: AI-assisted desk research with editorial checks. Reviewed ; next scheduled review . Rebuilt TM-297 as a ten-step case workflow from learning purpose and selection through permission, baseline, intervention, outcomes, attribution, editing, review, follow-up, and correction.