Under the photo: "Daniel, a homeless man we supported." On the page, a tag: Homelessness. In the annual report: "Homeless people supported: 212." In the database: Status: Homeless.

Nothing here was wrong when it was written. The form was signed. The quote was his. The number was counted.

The word that's wrong is "is".

Three years on, the page still says Daniel is homeless, in the present tense, with his photo and his first name. Anyone who knows him and finds it will read it as news.

You can take a story down in an afternoon. A label is harder, because it doesn't live in one place. It's in the headline, the caption, the tag, the database field, the mailing segment, the number in the report, the name of a folder on the shared drive and two conference slides. Nobody's job is to withdraw it, and the consent form didn't cover it anyway. It covered the story. Nobody asked about the word.

Then there's the uncomfortable middle. Labels rarely get updated because they're what the funding was won on. Reclassifying Daniel means one fewer person in a number. Nobody decides to leave it. It just stays.

There's a cost to you as well. A funder who reads "Daniel is homeless" on your website and "we helped people into housing" in your report is holding two versions that don't match, and will wonder which one to believe.

There are two kinds of consent in every case study. The first is consent to the story. The second is consent to the word you used to file the person. Almost everyone asks for the first. Almost nobody asks for the second.

I know what it is to outgrow a label. In 2014 I was a bereaved fiancé, and that was accurate. It's a strange way to introduce me now that I'm married. Nobody asked whether I wanted to keep it. People did, because it was the easiest way to introduce me.

So use this test. Would the person recognise themselves in the way you describe them now?

Then three actions:

Here's the same case study, rewritten. It's still a composite.

Look at what's different.

It starts in the past and arrives in the present. "Was", with a year, not "is".

Daniel is no longer the subject of a status. He's the person who chose the words, and the page says so.

And there's a review date, so the next person to open it knows it was checked.

The back end changes too:

And the consent form gets one more line:

If Daniel says he'd rather the case study came down, it comes down. That's a real loss. It's also his to choose.

If you fund or partner with charities, you can change what you get back by changing one question. Instead of "How many homeless people did you help?", try: "How many people did you support this year, and where are they now?" The first question rewards a charity for keeping a label. The second rewards it for what changed.

And if your company reuses a charity's story in its own materials, ask one thing before you do: "When did you last check this with the person?"

Printed reports and PDFs that have already gone out can't be recalled. Date them from now on, and fix the label in everything new.

Some people can't be reached. If you can't ask, put it in the past tense with a date, or take it down.

Some people choose a label and keep it with pride. "Survivor", "care leaver" and "refugee" can all be words people want. The point is that it's their choice, and it can change.

And some labels say more than the person ever chose to say. If a label touches something private, like health, sexuality, gender identity, immigration status or a conviction, assume they may be less open about it than your page makes them. Ask privately, through someone they trust, and stop sharing it further while you do.

Checking a label is easier with other people. Somebody to ask "would you be comfortable with that?" before it goes anywhere. That's what the Impact Storytelling Collective is for: a home for charity and social impact leaders, with live workshops, co-working sessions and honest feedback from people doing the same work.

It opens on Monday 9 November to a small group of 10 to 15 founding members, who join free and help me shape it. Once it's ready, it opens to everyone.

Join the list and I'll let you know when the doors open.

Would you like to be a founding member? Reply to this email and tell me a little about your work. Founding places are by invitation, and I'll be in touch.

This prompt audits a list of the labels your organisation holds about people in its stories. It makes a table of where each label sits and how old it is, flags which labels are most likely to be out of date and which carry the most risk if they are, and tells you who would have to agree to change each one. It suggests the smallest honest step for the hardest places, writes an open, optional question you could ask each person, and tells you what you might really lose by updating. It won't decide how anyone should be described, and it won't invent anything.

Before you paste: paste labels, not stories. Swap real names for made-up ones, and take out anything else that could identify the people you support.

Copy and paste it into Claude or Gemini.

This AI prompt is accessible to subscribers of this newsletter. It's free to subscribe, and all you need to provide is your email address ↓

Subscribe here

This is the third of four case files. One click tells me whether it's more useful than what I usually send, and there's space to add a line on why.

Got a case study you're not sure about? Or a grant renewal, a board report, a number nobody seems to notice?

Reply to this email, or message me on LinkedIn, and describe it in a few lines. I'll pick some to work through as case files in future editions.

If I use yours, I'll take out anything that could identify you, your organisation or the people you work with, and I'll show you the case before it goes out.

A story can come down in an afternoon. A label takes a decision.

Ask what you still call people. Then ask them what they'd like to be called.