.svg)
A quality control workflow is a structured, enforced sequence of checks, technical, brand, factual, and accessibility, that content or assets must pass before they're marked approved for publication, with the system (not reviewer memory) guaranteeing every check actually happened.
Before an asset or document is marked approved, a quality control workflow runs it through defined checks: technical correctness (resolution, format, color profile for media; formatting and completeness for documents), brand and style compliance, factual and rights accuracy, and accessibility requirements like captions or alt text. The workflow enforces that these checks happen, and are recorded, before an asset can move to publication.
Relying on reviewers to remember to check everything fails predictably as volume grows: rushed deadlines skip steps, and no one can prove after the fact that a check happened. A quality control workflow makes the checks structural, an asset literally cannot reach "approved" status without passing each gate, which is what makes quality consistent at scale and defensible under audit.
Quality control is a specific layer inside the broader approval workflow: approval asks "should this be published," while quality control asks "does this meet our standards to even be considered." Systems that track both separately, quality gate, then approval decision, give clearer audit trails than a single generic "approved" status that conflates the two.
ioMoVo lets teams build quality control checkpoints directly into approval workflows, enforced gates before publication, with a complete audit trail of what was checked and by whom. See the ioMoVo workflow page.
Quality control checks whether content meets defined standards; approval is the decision to publish it. Mature workflows track both as separate, sequential gates rather than one conflated status.
It routes back to the creator with the specific failure noted, rather than being rejected without explanation, keeping the revision cycle fast and specific.