Marketing & GrowthFree
Sales Collateral Audit and Fix List
Join the library to the send log and check every claim against a dated source, and the list of things worth fixing gets very short.
Wrenholt's library holds 214 files. Over one quarter, 2,913 tracked shares went out and 131 of those files were never sent to anyone, 61.2% of the library. Twelve files carried 78.0% of the sends. Five of the twelve state something that fails a check against a dated source, and those five account for 1,014 of the 1,148 sends that reached a prospect carrying a false claim. The other 66 wrong files carry 134 sends between them.
The worst of the five is the platform overview deck: 812 sends, 27.9% of everything the team sent, last edited 14 months ago, printing a per-seat price nobody charges. A date-sorted fix list does not find it quickly, because 118 files have not been touched in a year. It also gets the work wrong twice over. Of those 118, 47 are accurate, and 24 files edited in the last year carry a failed claim.
Then the channel the content tool cannot see. Wrenholt's CRM logged 1,036 outbound emails carrying an attached copy of a library asset, and 447 of them, 43.1%, ran a version other than the current one. Written for whoever owns the library and gets asked why a wrong number is still going out. Pair it with the launch kit when a release is what made the collateral wrong, the page copy rewrite when the claim itself is the problem, and the pricing page review when the price is.
What a send count can and cannot see
Accuracy is not a taste score. The FTC's guide for small business puts the standard plainly: before an ad runs the advertiser needs a reasonable basis for its claims, meaning objective evidence that supports the claim. At minimum that is the level of evidence the ad says it has. So a claim in a deck either resolves to a dated source or it does not. Averaging that into a five-point content score with usage and design is how a wrong price survives an audit at 3.4 out of 5.
Send counts are a floor, not a census. HubSpot's own documentation for its documents tool says tracking is applied automatically when a document is shared, and that viewers will not be identified unless they enter an email address or have done so before. That is the good channel. It counts links and it cannot count the file a rep attached from their laptop, which is why the attachment channel is pulled separately from the CRM and reported next to it rather than folded in.
Collapse near-duplicates before ranking anything. Wrenholt's security overview existed as four files carrying 166 sends between them. One was current. The other three, at 38, 22 and 10 sends, all printed a certification that expired last October, so 70 sends, 42.2%, went out wrong. No single stale copy clears the 40-send threshold that defines high use, so a ranking built on files rather than assets never looks at any of them.
How it works
Collapse the library
Near-duplicate files become one asset, with their sends added together before anything is ranked.
Count both channels
Tracked shares from the content tool, and attachments logged in the CRM, kept apart.
Check every claim
Prices, counts, certifications and integrations, each against a source with a date on it.
Weight by sends
The fix list is ordered by prospects who received the claim, not by how old the file is.
What you get
- Every asset in one row with its send count, its last edit and the claims it makes.
- Each factual claim checked against a dated source and marked pass, fail or unverifiable.
- Sends carrying a failed claim, which is the number that orders the fix list.
- The attachment channel counted separately, with the share running an older version.
- Near-duplicate files collapsed, so one asset's sends are not split four ways.
- A Sheet of the whole library and a Doc of the fix, own, delete and create lists.
Common questions
We already score assets one to five. Isn't that an audit?
Not for this failure. A deck scoring 1 on accuracy, 5 on usage and 4.2 on design averages to a healthy 3.4, so it stays in the library and keeps going out. Accuracy is the one dimension that cannot be averaged with anything, because a claim either resolves to a dated source or it does not.
Why not just retire everything nobody uses?
Because it changes nothing that a prospect sees. 131 of Wrenholt's 214 files were never sent during the quarter, so retiring all of them moves the exposure by zero. Meanwhile every one of the five files that needed work was in the top twelve by sends, which is where a library audit rarely looks.
Our reps attach files from their laptops. Can you see that?
Partly, wherever the CRM logs the outbound email. Wrenholt had 1,036 such sends and 447 of them, 43.1%, carried a version other than the library's, with a median gap of seven months. That is why the fix list ends in an expiry rather than an edit.
What counts as a claim worth checking?
Anything a buyer could act on or a lawyer could read back to you: prices and tiers, contract terms, customer and headcount numbers, certifications with dates, integration lists, performance and payback figures, named customers. Tone, design and template age are out of scope, and they are what most audits spend their time on.
What if we have no source of truth to check against?
Then the claim is marked unverifiable rather than accurate, and the count is a finding in itself: 33 of Wrenholt's files and 96 sends. The usual missing artifact is a dated price book, and the second is whatever produced the payback number on the ROI one-pager.
Does old always mean wrong?
No, which is the reason for the cross-tab. 47 of the 118 files Wrenholt had not touched in a year were accurate, because a discovery guide contains no facts that expire. And 24 files edited in the last year fail a check, usually because somebody restyled a deck and left the pricing slide alone.
What actually gets delivered?
A Sheet with one row per asset, carrying sends by channel, last edit, duplicate group, and each claim with its verdict and source. A Doc with the fix, own, delete and create lists, in send-weighted order. Anything on the create list starts in the customer story tool.
Sales Collateral Audit and Fix List
Fill in the form and your workspace opens with the work already underway.