A structured, confidential engagement model designed for institutional clients. Every stage is defined, every deliverable agreed in advance. The process is designed to be straightforward to initiate — and rigorous once under way.
All enquiries are treated as confidential from first contact and acknowledged within 24–48 hours. The mandate is reviewed, fit is assessed, and where appropriate a scoping consultation is scheduled — without obligation and governed by informal mutual confidentiality. The objective at this stage is mutual: to establish whether this is the right engagement for both parties, and to scope what it would involve.
Before any substantive discussion of content, a formal Non-Disclosure Agreement is executed. This protects both parties and is a standard feature of every engagement. The NDA is followed by a formal engagement letter setting out scope, deliverables, timeline, fees, and revision provisions. No work commences prior to execution of both documents.
Every document is built on structured knowledge extraction from the client. For TEFS and policy documents, this involves technical and strategic interviews with relevant subject-matter experts. For executive narratives and ghostwriting, it involves extended conversations designed to surface the authentic voice, intellectual framework, and career arc of the principal. The document is written from understanding, not from a brief alone — and that distinction is evident in the finished work.
Before drafting begins, a detailed structural framework is produced — mapping the argument, sequencing, evidential requirements, and sectoral register of the finished work. This is submitted to the client for review and approval. Addressing structural questions at this stage eliminates the majority of revision cycles later, and ensures the final document achieves its purpose rather than merely fulfilling its brief.
The first full draft is delivered against the approved architecture. For complex institutional documents, this draft is typically 85–90% of the final text — structurally complete, argumentatively coherent, and written to the target register. Client review at this stage focuses on substance: accuracy of facts, positions, and scope. The structure and language register are already locked.
All engagements include a defined number of revision rounds, specified in the engagement letter. Revisions are handled systematically — factual corrections are always incorporated, scope extensions are subject to additional agreement, and stylistic preferences are accommodated within the register requirements of the document. The process is collaborative throughout: the client's knowledge of the subject informs the work at every stage.
Final delivery includes the finished document in agreed formats, along with any supporting materials produced during the engagement. Upon delivery and final payment, all proprietary client materials are returned or securely destroyed per the NDA provisions. The intellectual property in all delivered work vests absolutely in the client.
The most consequential failures in institutional documents are structural, not grammatical. A document that is well-proofread but architecturally incoherent will not survive the scrutiny of a review committee, however polished its surface appears. The editorial process here begins with structure — mapping the argument before refining the prose. Surface correction is the final stage of a process that begins much deeper.
Institutional documents produced for international audiences carry a specific cross-cultural challenge. The conventions of argument, evidence, and authority differ across linguistic and cultural traditions. Bridging those differences — without flattening the integrity of either — requires editorial judgment informed by direct experience of the institutions involved. This is a practiced competency, not a theoretical one.
In ghostwriting and executive narrative work, the central discipline is preservation of the principal's voice. The finished document must read as an authentic expression of the principal — their cadence, their intellectual priorities, their characteristic ways of framing problems. The measure of success is a document that reads as though no editor touched it. Achieving that requires intensive listening, rigorous structural discipline, and a practiced habit of editorial self-effacement throughout the process.
Ready to discuss how this process applies to your mandate?
Or write directly: skr@skreditorial.com
Request a Confidential Consultation