Does your inquiry promise only the follow-up you actually send?
Compare the form wording a visitor saw with the actual contact workflows linked to that submission. Identify the requested callback, any acknowledgment and any additional promotional sequence or list enrollment separately. If a workflow expands the purpose beyond the visible statement, record that mismatch and give it to the policy owner for qualified review. Collecting an email address or phone number for an inquiry does not, by itself, document what the visitor was told about another purpose.
For: A research-only merchant whose consultation or inquiry form feeds staff follow-up, automated messages or a separate marketing system.
Read the text beside the form fields, submission control, any selectable choices and the linked policy. Include the confirmation screen and automatic acknowledgment when describing the full journey, but keep their timing clear: text sent after submission is not evidence of what appeared before it.
Date the version examined and record whether it is a currently observed page, an earlier retained version or configuration that has not been observed. When reviewing an existing inquiry, today's form text may not be the version that accompanied it. Keep the historical gap visible rather than applying new wording to an earlier record.
The question is specific to the contact the form describes. A request to discuss a business problem, a response-time promise and an invitation to receive ongoing promotions are different representations. Record each one the form actually makes, without adding a purpose because the software can support it.
Follow the submission through its real destinations
Map where the form sends a submission: the staff inbox or queue, any customer-management system and any marketing platform connected to it. Read the authorized workflow settings and available real activity records. Record the trigger, purpose, contact channel and owner for each downstream action.
Keep configured actions separate from observed actions. A workflow setting can show intended routing; an actual send or call record can show what happened for a real inquiry. Neither should be relabeled as the other. If no real activity record is available, the configured pathway is still useful evidence, but actual contact remains unverified.
Classify messages by their content and purpose, rather than only by the system that sent them. An acknowledgment of receipt, a reply addressing the requested consultation and an ongoing offer sequence deserve separate entries. If one message combines purposes, record that combination for review instead of forcing it into the callback category.
Record the difference without declaring permission
Place the visible statement beside each workflow purpose. A workflow that answers the described inquiry is consistent with that purpose at the level of this factual comparison. An unrelated promotional enrollment needs its own entry showing where, if anywhere, it was described and what associated choice or consent record the business actually holds.
Where a record exists, identify the wording version, recorded action, date and purpose it relates to in the authorized internal system. In the public worksheet, note only whether that evidence exists and matches. A stored checkbox value without its associated wording leaves the meaning uncertain. Missing evidence should remain missing; do not reconstruct a visitor's choice from the current form.
The FTC's guidance supports truthful and nonmisleading representations with appropriate substantiation. It does not supply the legal consent requirements for every country, contact channel or audience. This comparison therefore flags a purpose expansion; it does not decide whether a marketing message is lawful or whether a particular record supplies sufficient permission.
Give the policy owner a specific correction decision
For each mismatch, name the workflow owner, the visible statement and the action that extends beyond it. Ask the responsible policy owner to decide, with qualified advice where needed, whether the workflow, the disclosure or both require a change. Revised wording can describe a future practice; it does not establish what earlier visitors agreed to.
After an authorized change, compare the published wording with the actual configured workflow and available activity evidence again for that affected path. Retain the version and observation date. Do not create a fabricated inquiry or send promotional contact merely to populate this comparison.
Prism's published website-review scope reads claims, policies and business disclosures together, with informational findings. Its how-it-works page describes agreeing consultation scope and follow-up before work; it does not establish broad marketing permission or a response-time guarantee. For a scoped website-review inquiry, provide the public form URL and a nonsensitive description of the mismatch. Agree the pages, questions and follow-up to examine before work starts.
Contact-purpose comparison
Use this for one real form and repeat the workflow entries in your private records for each destination. The useful outcome is a documented match, a purpose expansion or an evidence gap. None of those labels determines legal marketing permission. Keep individual contact and consent records outside this worksheet.
Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.
Contact-purpose comparison. The last column is for temporary notes.
Comparison point
Evidence to inspect
Interpretation
Your finding
Form statement
Evidence to inspectObserved text beside fields and submission control, with the wording version and date.
InterpretationDefines what the visitor was told at submission; later acknowledgments do not replace it.
Requested callback
Evidence to inspectDescription of the inquiry-handling workflow and existing relevant follow-up records.
InterpretationIdentify the channel and contact that address the stated request.
Additional marketing purpose
Evidence to inspectActual list enrollment, promotional sequence or mixed-purpose message, if any.
InterpretationIdentify each purpose extending beyond the callback and where it was described.
Consent record
Evidence to inspectAvailability of an associated wording version, recorded action, purpose and date in the authorized system.
InterpretationRecord match, mismatch or missing evidence only; do not infer legal sufficiency.
Configured versus observed contact
Evidence to inspectWorkflow settings compared with actual retained send or call evidence.
InterpretationSeparate an intended action from contact that is documented as having occurred.
Policy owner
Evidence to inspectRole responsible for form representations and the downstream purpose decision.
InterpretationAssign the specific mismatch for qualified review and an authorized correction.
Changed version
Evidence to inspectPublished statement and workflow after the authorized change, with observation date.
InterpretationSupports a conclusion about that version; does not rewrite earlier visitor choices.
These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.
Limits
This page does not determine privacy compliance, cookie consent, lawful bases or legal requirements for email, phone or other marketing contact.
A contact field, a submission or a checkbox is not treated here as universal marketing permission.
Keep contact lists, individual messages, consent records and identifying details out of the worksheet and public consultation form.
FTC truth in advertising — checked 2026-09-28. Advertising must be truthful, nonmisleading and substantiated across media including websites. This supports comparing visible representations with practice, not a determination of marketing consent requirements.
Prism features — checked 2026-09-21. Prism reads product descriptions, claims, policies and business disclosures together within an agreed review scope. Findings are informational, not a legal opinion or certification.
Prism: How it works — checked 2026-09-21. The consultation defines pages, questions and follow-up before work, with scope, fees and terms confirmed. It does not state a response-time guarantee or establish permission for broader marketing contact.