Pose a focused question to corporate communications documents and review the result
PugID analyses Corporate Communications documents stored in Google Drive or SharePoint. A team member picks a communications-specific question. PugID locates the relevant files and returns a structured result drawn from those documents. The communications team can then compare the result against source files and governed publishing, intranet, email, collaboration, translation, asset, analytics or approval systems before using it in a communications review or decision.
Examine the documents behind messages and channels
A communications review may rely on editorial calendars, message houses, town-hall materials, newsletter reports, policy updates, change plans, channel metrics, executive drafts, stakeholder maps, feedback summaries, localization trackers and asset registers. When these documents are scattered across different folders, reviewers must first determine the audience, channel, campaign or change, reporting period, owner, approval status and version.
PugID operates at that document layer. It applies a chosen communications question to identify relevant material in connected Google Drive or SharePoint folders and deliver a structured result. It is not a replacement for publishing, intranet, email, collaboration, translation, digital-asset, analytics, survey, HR, approval, legal-review or live business-intelligence systems. Current messages, audiences, distribution lists, channel data, approvals and published content stay within governed systems.
Select the communications question you need to review
The provided catalogue contains focused questions for editorial plans, messages, town halls, change communications, channels, executives, feedback and accessibility.
Advance from approved folders to a reviewable result
Connect the approved folders.
Link the Google Drive or SharePoint locations that hold the documents authorised for the communications review.
Pick one communications question.
Select the prompt that fits the audience, channel, campaign or change, reporting period and review task.
Examine the structured result.
Compare it against source documents and governed systems, resolve conflicts and secure the required communications, executive, HR, legal, privacy, accessibility or brand approval before use.
Preserve visibility of source authority and publishing status
Document analysis can assist a review, but messages, distribution lists, policy details, schedules, channel metrics and feedback change. Note the audience, channel, campaign or change, reporting period, extraction date, source owner and approval status. Verify material findings in the authoritative publishing or analytics system before taking action.
PugID does not send communications, publish announcements, approve messages, manage distribution lists, validate policy interpretation, determine employee sentiment, certify accessibility or calculate authoritative channel performance. Where documents disagree, examine their scope, dates, owners and approval status. A structured result is review material, not a publishing decision.
Keep sensitive communications and data handling within scope
PugID states that connections are encrypted, credentials are not stored, and documents and results are not retained permanently. It also states that temporary analysis data is automatically deleted after eight hours.
Before connecting unreleased announcements, employee feedback, distribution lists, executive drafts, change plans, policy communications or translation material, verify need-to-know access, privacy requirements, employee-relations constraints, contractual terms, processing details and internal policies. Use approved, minimised test data. Do not put passwords, API keys, private keys, tokens or other secrets in connected documents.
Run one bounded communications review
Start with a controlled task such as an approved town-hall pack, a closed-period channel summary or an accessibility review of published communications. Connect only approved folders, set the audience, channel and date range, compare the result against governed systems and log exceptions before expanding the evaluation.