37Act Guide

A research-backed briefing loop for 37 Act reporting content

A source-backed research briefing process for 37Act content: CERL references, GASB support, public report examples, audit patterns, and buyer questions.

37Act should grow like a focused research desk and product lab, not like a generic blog. The market is small, specialized, and trust-sensitive. That makes each strong public source more valuable: a Government Code reference, a SACRS explanation, an ACFR example, an actuarial valuation report, a GASB-support pattern, a board packet, or a recurring buyer question can become both a better public page and a better product decision.

Weekly briefing checklist

  • What public reports or official references changed or were newly found?
  • Which 37 Act / CERL reporting workflow does the source clarify?
  • What claim can be safely made from this source?
  • Which public page, tool, FAQ, or county page should be updated?
  • What product assumption or pilot question does this change?
  • Does the wording preserve the boundary around legal, actuarial, audit, investment, and finance review?

Source-to-output rule

Every research pass should end with a durable output: an updated page, new FAQ, source note, tool improvement, product question, or content brief. If the source does not change what the site says or what the product should test, it should stay in a private research map until it does.

Research loop

Turn source monitoring into better public answers and better product assumptions.

37Act is narrow enough that every strong source can improve both the website and the product thesis. The briefing loop keeps research from living only in notes.

01

1. Collect

Track public reporting examples

Review public ACFRs, actuarial valuation reports, GASB materials, employer schedules, board packets, financial statements, and report-library pages from CERL systems.

02

2. Classify

Tag each source by workflow

Classify sources by source intake, contribution reconciliation, actuarial data, GASB support, audit evidence, board packets, employer reporting, or governance.

03

3. Convert

Create one public output

Turn the source into a guide update, county page improvement, FAQ, tool checklist, glossary entry, comparison note, or content brief for a future article.

04

4. Productize

Feed the roadmap

Record product implications: validations needed, import formats, evidence requirements, review gates, export formats, and design-partner questions.

Briefing outputs

Each briefing should produce at least one durable site asset.

The site grows by accumulating useful answers, not by publishing filler. A weekly research pass should leave behind something visible, source-aware, and searchable.

01
FAQ

Reader-question answer

Add a direct answer for a specific administrator, finance, audit, or board-support question.

02
SRC

Source note

Add or update a source-backed note tied to a public report, Government Code reference, SACRS context, or official report library.

03
GUIDE

Guide update

Improve an evergreen page such as CERL reporting requirements, GASB support, actuarial data, board packets, integrations, or security.

04
TOOL

Tool improvement

Convert repeated research patterns into a checklist, readiness review, exception-log field, source inventory item, or pilot intake question.

05
COUNTY

County-system page update

Strengthen a county retirement-system page with careful public context and links to relevant workflow topics.

06
ROAD

Product roadmap question

Capture implementation questions about file formats, review ownership, validation logic, export requirements, procurement, or data governance.

Editorial standard

Public-sector informational content needs a higher evidence bar than generic SaaS SEO.

The site can be commercially useful while staying cautious around legal, actuarial, audit, and government-reporting claims.

Current state

Weak content

  • !Broad AI-generated explainers with no source trail
  • !Overconfident compliance claims
  • !Thin pages repeating the same product pitch
  • !Unclear distinction between reporting support and professional review

With 37Act

37Act standard

  • Source-backed, workflow-specific explanations
  • Clear professional-review disclaimers where needed
  • Direct answers to narrow buyer and operator questions
  • Product assumptions linked to evidence and design-partner discovery

Bring a real reporting question to the next briefing.

If your team is wrestling with source files, validation rules, GASB support, actuarial data, audit evidence, or board packets, the best next step is a focused working session around that actual workflow.

Request a research-informed assessment