The operating problem
A private satisfaction survey must not decide who receives a public review invitation. Use eligibility criteria such as permitted contact, a completed matter, and no prior request—not whether the client seems happy.
Use your own working copy
The free workbook for this process opens in a browser and works offline after download. It includes editable checks and notes, a text export, and a print view. It is a planning resource: it does not send messages, read account data, or run actions in business systems. No vendor account is needed to use the workbook.
Map the process
1. Define neutral eligibility
Document the firm-approved eligibility rule. Apply it consistently without using sentiment, ratings, or a predicted review score.
2. Check communication permission
Confirm the recipient, permitted channel, completion date, and any matter-specific restriction before queuing a request.
3. Send an honest invitation
Ask for an optional, honest account of the experience. Provide the same review link to every eligible recipient and offer no reward.
4. Suppress duplicates
Keep a request timestamp and stop on opt-out. Do not chase a client repeatedly or require proof that a review was posted.
5. Review public responses
A responsible person checks any proposed response. Never confirm representation or disclose facts simply because a reviewer did so first.
Information to check
These reference fields describe the process. Use invented values while planning. Keep real records in an appropriate private system; the public website does not need them.
| Reference field | Working record | Check before progressing |
|---|---|---|
| matter_closed_at | eligibility_date | Use an approved delay |
| contact_permission | send_allowed | Honor opt-outs |
| last_review_request | dedupe_reference | Avoid repeated invitations |
| neutral_eligibility | policy_version | No sentiment gate |
| public_response | staff_draft | Confidentiality review required |
Acceptance checks
- A dissatisfied eligible client receives the same invitation.
- No incentive text is present.
- A prior request suppresses a duplicate.
- A public response revealing client facts cannot auto-publish.
Walk through a successful example, a duplicate, a missing item, an incorrect match, and an interrupted handoff with synthetic records. Record the expected result, observed result, owner, and recovery action. Checklists record your work; checking a box does not establish that an external action happened.
Ownership and review
Name the person responsible for the process and the person who can resolve an exception. Define which decisions require qualified professional review. Use stable references, limit access to private records, and document when work must stop. Educational material does not establish legal, accounting, tax, security, or regulatory compliance.
Run a measured pilot
Choose a small, reversible sample. Measure handling time, waiting time, review, rework, and errors before changing the process. Include the effort of maintaining the new method. Expand only when the observed result meets your acceptance criteria; a longer checklist is not proof of improved performance.
Use the free workflow planner to define your next step, or compare the assumptions in the opportunity calculator.