Content and responsibility
A public case note should not inherit an internal comment
Separate material approved for publication from the working information behind it.
A team turns an internal project summary into a public example. The text includes a useful explanation, but also a private contact note copied from the working record. Publishing needs an explicit content boundary rather than a convenient export of everything visible to staff.
Define the public purpose
For a fictional Estonia-connected consultancy, decide what a public case example is meant to explain. It may demonstrate a type of task without identifying a customer or claiming a result that has not been approved. Use fictional examples when that is the appropriate basis.
Keep the public draft separate from internal notes. Information that helps staff coordinate work does not automatically belong in marketing, a directory or a public knowledge page.
Review the whole publication unit
Check the text, screenshots, filenames, captions and downloadable documents. A page can remove a name while an image or file still reveals private detail. The responsible business people should confirm rights, facts and any necessary approvals.
The EDPB's small-business guide provides a starting point for data-protection questions. It does not make a particular publication safe merely because one visible identifier was removed.
Plan a correction route
Identify who can amend or withdraw the example and where copies controlled by the business appear. Review the page from a logged-out view before publication, using approved material. Keep the decision record appropriate to the organisation's process.
A publishing workflow project can make that boundary easier to maintain. The aim is useful public content grounded in approved information, with internal context kept where it belongs.
Further reading: EDPB small-business guidance.