# Choose a LinkedIn post format around the reader’s task

Original constructed exercise. No real accounts, publications, customers, viewers or experimental results. Keep completed real records private.

## Three complete source-to-format choices

F1 — Source: a fictional review counted 30 public response events but never obtained impressions. Reader task: distinguish the units. Complete text draft: “Thirty reactions and comments tell me about recorded response events. They do not tell me how often the post was displayed or how many different people saw it. Without the owner’s impression/reach data, those quantities remain unknown.” Decision: use text; reject a reach chart because its missing denominator would be invented. No visual asset is necessary to preserve the explanation.

F2 — Source: an original fictional three-step review with no private screenshot. Reader task: carry out the sequence at their own pace. Document storyboard: page 1 states “Check the exact exported file”; page 2 says “Open it and inspect order and readable labels”; page 3 says “Compare the result with the intended source, then record pass or hold.” Complete companion caption: “This constructed checklist covers inspection steps, not a guarantee of upload acceptance. Read the same sequence below if the document is inconvenient.” Decision: a document plus the full text alternative can fit; reject an unexplained collage. The actual packet contains every page’s wording, not an uploaded LinkedIn document.

F3 — Source: two fictional before/after labels, no recording of the intervening action and no permission to show a real customer screen. Reader task: compare the wording change. Safe caption: “Constructed comparison: ‘Results’ became ‘Recorded public responses’ to name the unit. This does not show a real customer interface or a measured comprehension gain.” Alternative text: “Two labels: Results; Recorded public responses. The revised label names the unit.” Decision: an original clearly labeled comparison with the same text can work; hold any real customer screenshot and reject a fabricated process video or claim of better understanding. If the reader instead needs the actual operation, obtain authorized footage and plan its visual/audio alternatives first.

## Keep the rejected alternative and the hold reason

The blank format record asks for reader task, source/version, allowed claims, chosen medium, complete draft/page/scene text, rejected alternatives, permissions, access needs, final-artifact inspection and proceed/hold decision. In F1 the missing exposure metric is a claim boundary; in F2 the readable sequence is essential; in F3 missing permission and footage prevent a real customer demonstration. These are different failure causes and need different remedies.

Read the full original cases and record without installing software. A complete draft or correctly reproduced text does not prove readability on every device, permission, successful native upload or audience preference. Use the actual final asset and target account for the remaining publication checks; keep a hold decision when that evidence is missing.

## Fill and decide

1. Reader task and observable useful result
2. Actual source/version, known units and missing evidence
3. Complete post/page/scene wording; constructed material labeled
4. Chosen medium and rejected alternative with reason
5. Asset permissions and private customer/source context
6. Text alternative, captions/description where needed and readable scale
7. Actual final-artifact inspection and target-account control; not just a draft
8. Proceed/hold, unresolved publication checks and bounded evaluation

Optional reproduction checks only fixed example data, arithmetic, timezone conversions and file identities. It does not assess completed private notes, permission, identities, language or effectiveness.