01
Separate the activity from the evidence about it
Write the sample activity as a quiet room for independent study, with audience and attendance arrangements marked not yet verified. The source note says fictional exercise, no provider contacted. This prevents the example from looking like a real opportunity. In an actual directory, a provider’s published details would supply the information and a source reference would let an editor inspect it again. The card should preserve unknown fields instead of filling them with plausible guesses about age limits, supervision or availability.
02
Choose a review interval and calculate its date
For the exercise, suppose an editor checks an entry on 1 April in a fictional planning year and chooses a 14-day review interval. The next review date is 15 April. This is an internal editorial schedule, not a claim that the provider guarantees two weeks of unchanged information. Record the check date and due date separately. If the provider announces a change sooner, the entry needs attention before the scheduled review. The interval is a chosen workflow setting that can be shortened or changed for different kinds of resource.
03
Give an overdue card a defined editorial status
If the review has not happened by 16 April, mark the sample overdue for review under the chosen rule. Do not change last checked to the current date merely because an editor opened the record. A completed review would need an actual source check and a note about any changes. The template can end with keep, revise or withhold as editorial decisions, each with a reason. This produces a clear maintenance record while leaving the provider responsible for its actual service and avoiding a false impression that a date stamp is a safety endorsement.