Position Register
A standing record of what your organisation has said publicly on the issues that matter, when, where and why, so any new statement can be checked against the old ones before a journalist does it for you.
Version 1.0 · Updated 15 September 2026
What it is
A position register is the institutional memory of a communications function, written down. For each issue that matters, it records the position the organisation currently holds, the wording it has used in public, when and where it said so, why, what changed and who owns it. It exists so that the answer to “what have we said about this before” takes two minutes rather than an afternoon of searching old releases, and so that a new statement can be checked against the old ones before publication.
By the end you have one document, or one table, that any comms colleague can open before a media call, an executive briefing or a drafting session. It grows one row at a time and is reviewed on a fixed cadence. AI helps in two places: building the first version from your archive, and checking a new draft against the register.
When to use it
Use this template when:
- A reporter asks about something the organisation commented on before you joined
- You are preparing an executive for questions on a live or recurring issue
- A new statement might contradict, or be read as contradicting, an earlier one
- A position has changed and the reasoning should be recorded, not remembered
- A new comms lead, agency or spokesperson needs the history quickly
- You are building or refreshing your crisis playbook and need the standing lines
Don’t use this template if:
- Your organisation has never taken a public position on anything contested (rare, but check)
- You need a live issues log rather than a record of positions; that is the Issue Log Tracker
- The register would hold only one issue; a key messages grid is enough
Inputs needed
Before starting, gather:
- A list of the issues: what you are asked about, what you have been criticised on, what your sector is arguing about, what could go wrong
- For each, the most recent public statement and any earlier ones that differ
- The owner of the position (usually a director or a policy lead, not comms)
- Any board or executive decision that set or changed the position
- Your red lines and fixed wording, if they exist
The template
Register header
Organisation: [Name] Owner of the register: [Role and name] Review cadence: [Quarterly, or after any change of position] Last reviewed: [Date]
The register
| Issue | Current position (one or two sentences) | Approved wording (verbatim, if any) | First stated | Last stated | Where (channels, documents) | Why we hold it | Changed from | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Issue] | [Position] | [“Quote”] | [Date] | [Date] | [e.g. press release, annual report, CEO LinkedIn] | [Reasoning, evidence, decision reference] | [Earlier position and date, or “no change”] | [Role] | Live / Under review / Retired |
Entry detail (one per issue where the history matters)
Issue: [Name] What we say now: [Position, in the words we would use] What we said before: [Earlier positions, dated, with the change and why] What we will not say: [Red lines, claims we cannot substantiate, words we avoid] Likely challenge: [The question a journalist or critic would put, and the answer] Evidence: [Where the proof points live] Related positions: [Other issues this touches; keep them consistent]
Pre-publication check
Before any statement on a registered issue goes out:
- Read the entry.
- Does the new statement match the current position? If not, is the change deliberate and approved by the owner?
- Does it contradict anything under “What we said before” that is still findable?
- Does it cross a red line?
- Update the entry with the new date and channel once published.
AI prompt
Base prompt (build the first version)
I am building a position register for [ORGANISATION], a [SECTOR] organisation. It records what we have said publicly on the issues that matter, so we can check new statements against old ones.
Issues to cover:
[LIST ISSUES]
Source material (past statements, releases, quotes, posts, with dates and channels):
[PASTE, OR DESCRIBE WHERE EACH CAME FROM]
For each issue, produce a register entry with:
1. The current position in one or two sentences, in our words
2. Any verbatim wording we have used, quoted exactly, with the date and channel
3. First stated and last stated dates, from the material
4. Any earlier position that differs, with what changed and, if the material says, why
5. The most likely challenge a journalist or critic would put, and the strongest honest answer consistent with the position
6. Anything in the material that looks inconsistent between statements, flagged plainly
Rules: quote only what is in the material; do not invent dates, channels or reasoning. Where the material does not say why a position is held, write "reason not recorded" so I can fill it in. Where two statements contradict each other, say so; do not smooth it over.Prompt variations
Variation 1 – Check a new draft against the register:
Here is our position register: [PASTE ENTRIES FOR THE RELEVANT ISSUES]. Here is a draft statement: [PASTE]. Check the draft against the register and tell me: whether it matches the current position on each issue it touches; any line that contradicts, or could be read as contradicting, an earlier statement still in the public domain; any red line it crosses; and any claim that goes further than the approved wording. Quote the register line and the draft line side by side for each finding.Variation 2 – Reporter call in ten minutes:
A journalist from [OUTLET] is calling about [ISSUE] in ten minutes. Here is our register entry: [PASTE]. Give me: the position in one sentence; the two most likely questions and the answers consistent with the entry; anything we said before that they may quote back at us and how to handle it; and one thing I should not say.Variation 3 – Record a change of position:
Our position on [ISSUE] is changing from [OLD] to [NEW], decided by [OWNER] on [DATE] because [REASON]. Update the register entry to record the change, and draft: a one-paragraph explanation of the change we could use if asked; the question a critic would ask about the reversal; and an honest answer that does not pretend the old position was never held.Variation 4 – Onboarding a new spokesperson or agency:
Here is our full position register: [PASTE]. Produce a two-page briefing for a new [SPOKESPERSON / AGENCY] that covers: the five positions most likely to come up, each in one paragraph; the three where our position has changed and why; and the red lines. Plain language, no jargon, nothing that is not in the register.Human review checklist
- Is every quoted wording verbatim, with a date and channel you could produce if asked?
- Has the owner of each position confirmed the current line?
- Are changes of position recorded as changes, with the old position kept, not overwritten?
- Is “why we hold it” written for every live position, or marked as not recorded?
- Are red lines specific enough that a colleague could apply them without asking?
- Does the register cover what critics ask, not only what the organisation likes to talk about?
- Is the review date set and in someone’s diary?
- Is the register stored where the people who need it before a call can find it?
- Has anything confidential (legal advice, board deliberation) been kept out, or held in a restricted version?
Example output
Anonymised and shortened. Real outputs will vary based on your inputs.
Organisation: Regional water company Owner of the register: Head of Corporate Affairs Review cadence: Quarterly, and on any change
| Issue | Current position | Approved wording | First stated | Last stated | Where | Why we hold it | Changed from | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Storm overflow discharges | Discharges are a legacy design issue; we are investing to reduce them and publish our data | ”We publish every discharge within an hour and we are spending [£X] to reduce them by [date]“ | Mar 2023 | Aug 2026 | Annual report, website, CEO interviews | Regulator requirement; transparency reduces the trust gap | Pre-2023: “operating within permits”, retired after the 2023 Ofwat review | Director of Environment | Live |
| Executive pay | Bonuses are linked to environmental performance and were reduced in [year] | “No executive bonus was paid for [year]“ | Jun 2024 | Jul 2026 | Remuneration report, press statement | Board decision, June 2024 | Pre-2024: no public comment beyond the report | Chair of RemCo | Live |
| Hosepipe restrictions | Restrictions are a last resort and are announced at least [N] days ahead | (none approved; use the position) | Jul 2022 | Jun 2025 | Press releases, customer emails | Customer research on notice periods | No change | Head of Customer | Live |
Entry detail: Storm overflow discharges What we said before: “We operate within our permits” (2019 to early 2023). Retired after the 2023 Ofwat review because it was true and read as evasive. Likely challenge: “You said you were within your permits for years. What changed?” Answer: the permits allowed more than the public would accept; we chose to publish and to invest. Do not defend the old line. What we will not say: Any comparison with other companies’ discharge figures; any completion date not in the business plan.
Tips for success
Start with the ten issues, not the whole archive. A register with ten well-evidenced entries is used. One that attempts everything is abandoned at entry thirty.
Keep the old position. The value is the history. Overwriting a changed position with the new one recreates the problem the register exists to solve.
Write the challenge. The entry is not finished until it contains the question a critic would ask and the honest answer. That is the part people reach for under pressure.
Put the check in the workflow. A register nobody consults before publishing is a document. Add “checked against the position register” to the approval tracker for any statement on a registered issue.
Give it to the AI tool you already use. Once the register exists, pasting the relevant entry into a drafting session, or storing it as standing context where your tools allow, means every draft starts from what the organisation has said rather than from a blank page.
Common pitfalls
Recording what you wish you had said. The register is a record, not a rewrite. Quote what went out, however it reads now.
Letting comms own the position. Comms owns the register. The position belongs to whoever decided it. If no one did, that is the finding.
Confusing positions with key messages. Key messages are what you want to say. Positions are what you have said and will stand behind when challenged. The register holds the second.
Filling gaps by inference. If the archive does not say why a position was taken, write that it does not. An invented reason will be repeated in a briefing and then in an interview.
Treating the register as public. It contains reasoning and red lines. Keep it internal, keep the confidential layer separate, and follow your AI Use Policy before pasting entries into any tool.