A published number that turns out to be wrong, or a client named without permission, costs more than every post that number was ever going to appear in.
Why this is a separate step
Fact checking inside the writing process does not happen. The writer is in the flow of the argument, the number feels approximately right, and it goes in. The check has to be a distinct pass with its own output or it is not a check.
It also has to run before publication rather than at review, because by review the number is load-bearing: the whole post is built around it and correcting it means rewriting.
Naming permission is not a single rule
Clients grant different things. Some are happy to be named anywhere. Some agreed to a logo and not a result. Some will allow a named case study and not a social post. Treating this as one permission per client is how a name ends up somewhere it was never cleared for.
Anonymised still proves
A specific result from an unnamed company in a stated industry is strong proof. Losing the name costs less credibility than most people assume, and far less than publishing a name you did not have permission to use.
Runs well with
Skills compound. These are the ones we usually install alongside it.