Review the case against its publication conditions and current facts when a client relationship changes. Check identity, claims, images and links, then correct, pause or remove material as needed. Preserve an accurate private record and update controlled summaries so an older case does not imply a current relationship or endorsement.
Identify what changed and what needs review
A relationship may end, a contact may move roles, a service may be retired or a client may raise a publication concern. Record the actual trigger rather than assuming every change requires the same response. Gather the approved case version, relevant publication conditions and the source of its claims. These records help distinguish a factual update from a permission question. If the position is unclear, pause the affected material while obtaining the appropriate clarification instead of guessing from past goodwill.
List the elements that could be affected: client name, logo, quotations, screenshots, result statements and references to ongoing work. A historical project may remain accurate even when the relationship has ended, but present-tense wording can imply continued engagement. A former contact’s quotation may have its own agreed context. Review these details individually rather than making a blanket assumption that all publication is either permanently allowed or automatically prohibited by the relationship change.
Check the account for accuracy and implication
Read the case from a new visitor’s perspective. Could they believe that the client currently endorses every service you offer, that you still maintain the work or that an old metric describes the present system? Update wording and dates where needed. Keep the original project period clear, and do not rewrite the historical role merely to align with your current positioning. Correct a genuine error explicitly in your records so later edits do not reintroduce the older account.
Review linked material too. A client website may have changed ownership, removed a page or replaced the artifact you described. A link to a current site does not necessarily demonstrate your historical contribution. Consider whether an approved archived image or a factual explanation is more appropriate, while respecting publication conditions. If a statement is no longer supportable or an agreed permission no longer covers its use, remove or revise the affected material rather than retaining it for visual completeness.
Apply the decision across controlled copies
Inventory the detailed page, portfolio cards, service links, downloadable case documents and other versions you control. Update titles, excerpts and preview images as well as the body. Removing a sensitive screenshot from one page is insufficient if the same file remains in a downloadable pack or a shared preview. Keep a record of what changed and where. If material has been copied elsewhere, distinguish actions within your control from requests or follow-up that may still be needed.
Close the review with a clear public status appropriate to the case. It may remain as dated historical work, be replaced by a narrower permitted account or be removed with a useful onward route. Do not publish private disagreements as an explanation for removal. Retain only the private records you appropriately need to understand commitments and editorial decisions. Establish a future review trigger so another change in permission, attribution or service availability does not leave the same ambiguity unresolved again.
Fictional example: correcting an ongoing-support implication
A fictional documentation consultant, Stefan, finishes an invented client relationship after a completed guide project. His old case says he “supports the team’s guide,” which could imply continued maintenance. In the illustrative review, he checks the publication conditions and changes the wording to describe the dated project and handover. The case no longer suggests that current instructions remain under his review.
Stefan updates the portfolio card and downloadable summary, and checks whether a permitted screenshot still explains the historical work accurately. He records the reviewed version privately without publishing details of the relationship change. The example shows how to remove an unintended present-tense implication; it does not establish permission for a real client’s material or guarantee that third-party copies can be retrieved.
A checklist for your next step
- Record the review trigger.
- Gather the approved version and conditions.
- Check present-tense implications.
- Update controlled excerpts and assets.
- Set the next review trigger.
Common questions
Must I remove every case when a relationship ends?
Assess the actual publication conditions and facts. Historical accuracy, current implications and permission need separate consideration.
Should I explain a private disagreement on the page?
Usually the visitor only needs accurate project status and a useful route onward. Avoid unnecessary disclosure of private relationship details.
Further reading
These primary resources provide related background. They do not validate the illustrative example or endorse AliveProfile.
AI-assisted drafting and automated technical checks. Examples are illustrative; no independent expert review or real-world outcome validation is claimed. Read our editorial policy.