What to test in the Redcliffe beta

Bring the awkward examples

The best beta tests are not perfect examples. They are the pieces of content that make review slow: a strong claim that marketing wants to keep, a crypto onboarding screen with several constraints, a social post that is almost educational but still promotional, or an old campaign page that needs refreshing for current standards.

Redcliffe is built for those moments.

Review

Start with existing content. For the UK Financial Promotions Model beta, useful material includes landing pages, email campaigns, adviser communications, app screens, social posts, paid ads, financial-services explainers, and cryptoasset-promotion drafts.

The review should answer four practical questions:

• What is the issue?
• Which source or rule supports the finding?
• How serious is it?
• What would a usable fix look like?

If a finding is not clear enough for a reviewer to act on, we want to know.

Compose

Compose is best tested with briefs that contain real constraints: audience, channel, product, tone, claim boundaries, required disclosures, and any facts that must be current.

A weak test is "write a compliant ad". A useful test is "write a LinkedIn post for this product, aimed at this audience, with this call to action, using these approved facts, and avoiding these claims."

The more specific the brief, the more the beta reveals about whether the drafting workflow is useful in practice.

Refresh

Refresh is where regulated-content operations often struggle. Content may be acceptable when written, then become stale because guidance changes, a product changes, a fact changes, or a reviewer flags an issue.

Good Refresh tests include old landing pages, newsletters, campaign copy, and documents that need to be brought back into line without rewriting them from scratch.

The output should show what changed and why.

Evidence and record

Please test the boring parts too. They matter.

Can you see the source behind a finding? Can you understand why a suggested fix was proposed? Does the report give enough context for a compliance file? Does the approval flow match how your team actually works?

Those details decide whether Redcliffe is only interesting or genuinely useful.

What feedback helps most

The most valuable feedback is concrete:

• a finding was right but too severe
• a finding was technically right but not commercially useful
• a fix preserved the wrong part of the message
• a source was right but the explanation was unclear
• the workflow missed a step your team needs every week

That is the kind of feedback that improves the product quickly.

Request beta access if you want to test Redcliffe with your own regulated-content workflow.