Standard work

Consistency audit

Consistency audit is licensed CC BY 4.0. Attribution: Katafacts (katafacts.com).

1 · What it is

What it is

A message architecture written once and never checked again drifts, the same way any standard does — a rep rounds a number up, marketing gets ahead of the evidence, an unproven pillar quietly becomes a headline claim. This audit is the sustainment audit's exact shape, applied to a message architecture: restate what it was supposed to ensure, get a checklist of specific, verifiable practices, and see honestly which are still holding.

2 · When to use it

When to use it — and when not to

Use it when

A message architecture has been live long enough to check whether reps and channels are actually still using it consistently, not just whether it was written.
You want to catch message drift — a claim getting ahead of its actual proof, or each channel restating a number differently — before it becomes the norm.
You want to close a gap the message architecture itself flagged when it was first built (a pillar deliberately held back as unproven).

Not when

The message architecture was just published — give it real time in market before auditing it.

3 · How to fill it in

How to fill it in

Original objective: What was the message architecture supposed to ensure — which pillars, in what language?
Sustainment checks: Drafted from what the message architecture was supposed to ensure — verify what's actually still holding across reps and channels.
Narrative: Drafted from the checklist actually built.

4 · What good looks like

What good looks like

The example below audits the Beacon Analytics message architecture sixty days after it was published — including whether the pillar it deliberately held back as unproven has stayed out of real marketing claims, and finding a real drift where it hasn't.

Same example, as a downloadable xlsx workbook.

Download .xlsx

Sustainment audit

60-day audit — Beacon Analytics message architecture

Auditing: Beacon Analytics message architecture (message architecture)

Sam Cole, Sales Enablement · 2027-04-30 · 60 days since event

Original objective

Every rep and every marketing channel uses the same two proven pillars — the 48-hour deal-risk visibility target and the $310K quantified business-case reference figure — in the same substantiated language, with the unproven third pillar (trust over a familiar spreadsheet) deliberately kept out of claims until it's actually tested.

Sustainment checks

3 of 4 holding (75%)

✓Sales reps cite the 48-hour visibility target specifically, not a rounded or invented number
✓Case studies and the sales deck use the $310K figure as a cited reference result, not a guaranteed number for every buyer
○Marketing site copy leads with the same two proven pillars as the message architecture, not the unproven third one
✓Customer success renewal messaging doesn't contradict the original pitch

At risk: Marketing site copy leads with the same two proven pillars as the message architecture, not the unproven third one

Narrative

Three of four practices are still holding: reps and case studies are both using the real, substantiated numbers rather than inventing rounder or bigger-sounding ones, and customer success hasn't drifted from the original pitch. The one gap is a real one — the homepage hero has jumped ahead of the evidence, leading with the exact spreadsheet-trust claim the message architecture named as unproven and explicitly held back. That's not a small copy-editing note; it's the specific failure mode a message architecture exists to prevent, showing up in production.

5 · Common mistakes

Common mistakes

Auditing a message architecture that was never actually rolled out to reps or channels.
This audit checks whether real usage has drifted from a real standard — there's nothing to check if the message was never actually put into use.
Marking a practice as holding without actually checking the live sales deck, site copy, or a real call.
The audit only has value if it reflects what's actually being said, not a hopeful assumption that the message architecture is being followed.

6 · What it connects to

What it connects to

upstream

Message architecture
The architecture's own pillars and proof points are exactly what this audit checks against reality — including whether an unproven pillar has quietly crept into claims anyway.

downstream

7 · Where AI helps

Where AI helps

Judgement — stays yours

Deciding how much time to give a message architecture in market before auditing it
Deciding what to do about a pillar that's drifted from its proven language

Analysis — AI helps

Drafting specific, verifiable checks from a description of what the message architecture was supposed to ensure
Drafting the narrative from the checklist actually built

Drudgery — automated

Tallying how many practices are still holding
Identifying which practices are at risk
Exporting to xlsx in the house format

9 · Rate this kata