Guide
Find the Follow-Up Story in Your Own Reporting
Track promises, open questions and expected events after publication. A follow-up worksheet helps distinguish a real update from a recycled take.
What makes a follow-up worth publishing?
A follow-up is worth publishing when new evidence changes the answer, tests an earlier claim or resolves a question readers still need answered. The passage of time alone is not an update. Start with what the original article left open and the evidence that could settle it.
Separate promises made by sources from predictions you made yourself. Both deserve scrutiny, but they require different attribution. Save the original wording and date so later reporting does not quietly move the target.
Keep an open-loop register
| Field | What to record at publication |
|---|---|
| Original article | Link and publication date |
| Open question | The uncertainty readers were left with |
| Claim or commitment | Exact wording, source and qualification |
| Expected event | Decision, release, filing or other observable milestone |
| Check date | When it becomes sensible to revisit |
| Evidence needed | What would confirm, contradict or narrow the account |
| Latest status | Checked, unresolved, changed or closed |
A check date is a reminder to report, not a promise that something will happen. Keep unresolved items without forcing them into the publishing calendar.
Compare the same thing twice
Imagine a hypothetical local transit agency that announced a pilot with a summer review. Your follow-up should identify what the review actually measured, whether the pilot's scope changed and what evidence supports the agency's decision.
Do not compare an initial target for all riders with a later result for only survey respondents. If measures changed, explain the change. Ask affected riders and staff about the implementation while keeping their accounts distinct from system-wide data.
The article may find success, failure, mixed results or too little information to judge. “There is still no published review as of our check date” is a narrower observation than “the agency abandoned evaluation.” Ask for a response before assigning a reason to an absence.
Make the new information visible
Link to the original story and summarize only the context needed to understand what changed. Put the new evidence near the top. If the original contained an error, correct it explicitly rather than hiding the correction inside a follow-up.
Update the earlier article with a link when appropriate so readers arriving through search can find the later evidence. Keep publication and update dates meaningful; a refreshed timestamp should correspond to a substantive change.
Close the loop or name the next one
End by answering the original question as far as the evidence permits. If another uncertainty remains, identify the event or record that could resolve it. This gives the next piece a reporting basis rather than a recurring obligation to comment.
Pair the register with a standing file and a content mix based on reader jobs.