If the governance guide is too abstract to use, start by preserving one representative example. It gives the investigation a concrete reference and makes the eventual correction easier to judge.
Find the likely cause
Policies lack concrete decision examples.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Add examples of who approves common changes and why.
Content governance makes it clear who can create, approve, update, and retire material as business facts change.
Check that the repair worked
Test the guide against a recent real publishing decision.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: no one owns outdated content. Assign a maintenance owner and a review trigger to important pages.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track overdue reviews, contradictory pages, and unresolved ownership questions.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.