# Choose a content mix you can substantiate and maintain

Complete original constructed exercise. No real people, accounts, studies, enquiries, projects or business results.

Allocate a bounded set of future pieces across different reader jobs, then check evidence, production time and maintenance before committing. A mix is a reasoned portfolio choice, not a universal ratio of educational, personal and promotional posts or a promise of algorithmic reach.

## Choose the portfolio boundary and purpose

Define the planning window, actual available hours and what the collection should help readers do. For example, an editor may have ten hours this month to explain reporting, support safe sharing and clarify a small service. Those are distinct jobs; four post slots are a production constraint. The slots do not establish demand or require four new topics when existing guides already answer the questions.

DfE’s public content-strategy guidance connects user goals, purpose, measurement and maintenance. Its internal strategy documents were not accessed. Our portfolio method adapts that planning principle; it does not borrow government authority for a fixed posting ratio, and no source establishes an ideal creator content mix here.

## Write candidates with a complete cost and evidence state

For each candidate, record the reader task, existing coverage, support for its claims, proposed output, production/review time, maintenance time and reason to include or defer it. Include source checking, accessibility, localization and actual export inspection where needed. A familiar topic is not automatically cheap if the interface or evidence has changed.

Keep different purposes visible without forcing every piece through an invented funnel. An explanation can answer a recurring technical uncertainty, a field example can demonstrate a bounded method and a service note can describe an actual offer. A personal anecdote belongs only when it contributes to the intended task and has truthful scope. “Trust-building” is a hypothesis unless suitable evidence supports that outcome.

## Inspect one complete ten-hour allocation

The constructed shortlist has A period explanation, 2 production hours plus 1 maintenance; B export review, 3 plus 1; C service-scope example, 2 plus 1; D unsupported performance ranking, 2 plus 1. Choose A/B/C: 7 production hours and 3 maintenance hours use the ten-hour budget. D stays held because its comparative evidence is missing, even if a spare post slot exists. These are declared estimates, not measured production times.

The proposed mix contains three different tasks, not three confirmed audience segments. Do not turn one item out of three into an effectiveness estimate of 33%. If B needs two extra review hours, the plan becomes 12 hours; reduce scope, defer another piece or obtain genuinely available capacity. Silently deleting maintenance time does not make the plan feasible.

| Candidate | Production + maintenance hours | Decision |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 2 + 1 | select |
| B | 3 + 1 | select |
| C | 2 + 1 | select |
| D | 2 + 1 | hold: evidence missing |

## Resolve three portfolio trade-offs

M-A — Constructed ratio rule: a template demands 80% educational posts although an urgent correction is due. Decision: publish the necessary correction within the authorized workflow and revise the plan. Outcome: a justified portfolio change, no algorithm penalty or growth effect asserted.

M-B — Constructed hidden cost: three bilingual pieces fit production estimates but their German review was omitted. Decision: add that actual work before committing; reduce the plan if it exceeds capacity. Outcome: an honest estimate rather than a false localization promise.

M-C — Constructed attractive ranking: D would fill a visually appealing slot but no comparable test exists. Decision: hold the ranking or replace its claim with a genuinely supported task. Outcome: unused capacity is preferable to an invented comparison; no extra topic credit for a renamed duplicate.

## Review what happened without manufacturing a winner

Save the proposed mix before execution, then record actual outputs, effort, corrections and suitable reader evidence separately. Compare like observations at a defined age and within actual permissions. Different post topics, formats, distribution and timing confound a casual reach comparison. A service note with fewer impressions may still explain an important boundary; impressions alone cannot decide the entire portfolio.

Use the review to identify missing evidence or work rather than force every category into success or failure. A small plan may justify a modest descriptive review, not a randomized causal experiment. The existing test-plan and 30-day guides cover those separate tasks. Do not repeatedly redesign the mix while a declared comparison is still running without preserving the change.

## Keep the allocation and its revision reason

The packet has a blank candidate/allocation record and the complete A–D exercise. Retain task, support, output, estimates, maintenance, selection reason, owner, actual state and review boundary. The offline checker verifies 7+3=10, the held D state and the 12-hour overrun. It does not certify actual available time, audience benefit, an optimal ratio or return on effort.

Primary guidance was read on 1 November 2026. All candidates and hours are constructed. Nothing was scheduled or published to a native account, and no engagement or conversion experiment was conducted. Keep the proposed mix useful enough to change when real constraints change.

1. Record the task, scope and actual authority.
2. Inspect inputs and evidence state at the actual source.
3. Work through the full proposal with dependencies and unknowns.
4. Record the decision, owner and next permitted step.
5. Verify actual results separately from plans and constructed examples.

## Primary sources

- [DfE: Purpose, measurement and content maintenance](https://design.education.gov.uk/content-design/content-strategies)