A procedure someone else can actually follow.
Fictional starter — replace with your own material.
Source: https://clankercloud.ai/templates/standard-operating-procedure

Copy into Workspace yourself:

Draft weekly-queue-review-sop.md from the fictional process notes below. Include purpose and scope, trigger, required inputs, roles, numbered steps, decision branches, stop conditions, outputs, and completion evidence. Mark the SOP Draft. Preserve the original process rules; list unspecified storage, missing-owner status, and both-reviewers-unavailable behavior as open questions.

Walk Q-17 through the rules and report the expected proposed status and reviewer. Do not execute the procedure, edit an external queue, publish anything, connect accounts, or imply that prose enforces approvals. End with a short checklist for the process owner to approve the draft.

# Fictional process notes: weekly content queue review
Process owner: Priya. Backup: Leo.
Trigger: the coordinator starts a weekly queue review; no automation is configured.
Input: content-queue.csv with item_id, owner, status, source_link, reviewer, approval_date.
Allowed statuses: Draft, In review, Approved, Blocked.

[P1] Preserve the received queue and work on a dated copy.
[P2] Check every item has an ID and owner. Missing values go to the issue list.
[P3] An Approved item must have a reviewer and approval_date. Otherwise change its status in the draft review to Blocked and explain why.
[P4] Check source_link is present. Do not open private links without the required access.
[P5] Priya reviews the proposed changes. If Priya is away, Leo reviews them.
[P6] Save the reviewed queue and issue list. Queue review does not authorize publication.
[P7] If the source file cannot be read, stop and request a readable copy; do not overwrite it.

Test case: Q-17 has owner Mina, status Approved, source_link internal-note-17, reviewer blank, approval_date blank. Priya is available.

Illustrative result:
Fictional expected SOP test

Input Q-17: owner Mina; Approved; reviewer missing; approval_date missing.
Rule P3: propose Blocked in the dated working copy and record both missing approval fields.
Review P5: Priya reviews the proposed change because she is available.
Output P6: reviewed queue and issue list after human review; no publication.

Open rules: destination and retention for dated files; status for missing owner; escalation if both reviewers are unavailable.
Stop test: unreadable source → request a readable copy, preserve original, do not continue by guessing (P7).

Review checklist:
- Every operational rule can be traced to the supplied process notes.
- Q-17 becomes a proposed Blocked item with both missing approval fields recorded.
- Publication remains outside the procedure’s scope.
- Undefined rules remain questions, not invented company policy.
- The draft includes an observable completion check and a testable stop path.