Walking into a review and repeating a status update that turns out to be wrong costs more trust than the delay it was covering for.
Why it distrusts the status notes
Status updates are written by people who intend to finish the thing, often at the moment they intend to finish it. The gap between that and the campaign actually being live is usually small and occasionally a week, and the call is exactly the wrong place to discover which.
So every claimed deliverable is checked against the system that would show it: the campaign exists and is active, the sequence has the steps, the task is actually closed. The brief reports what is true.
The split matters
Half of what you need before a client call is not for the client. Internal delays, a resourcing problem, a number that is soft. Keeping that in a separate section from the agenda itself is what stops it being read out by accident when the call runs long and somebody starts working down the page.
Optional progress section
For monthly or quarterly reviews it can append a short progress section covering the period rather than the week. It is off by default, because attaching a month of context to a weekly sync makes the weekly sync worse.
Runs well with
Skills compound. These are the ones we usually install alongside it.