Review process

Review states shown to readers

• Official source verified — the public record retains an official manufacturer URL, scope, evidence excerpt, and a real content-verification date.
• Automated consistency check passed — the committed snapshot passed schema, evidence, safety-boundary, code-normalization, and route checks.
• Human technical review pending — no person has been credited as having completed a technical review for the public snapshot.
• Publication gate — automated publication checks passed for the immutable public snapshot; this is not a human technical-review badge.
• Official source conflict or model applicability uncertain — the record must be held or clearly scoped rather than silently merged.

What automation may do

Automated crawlers and builders may collect an allowlisted official source, bind fields to evidence, normalize display-code formatting, run safety rules, and prepare a private draft. A failing or missing check is fail-closed. Automation cannot publish a draft, resolve a source conflict, or claim a human review.

What a human reviewer does

An authenticated reviewer can inspect official evidence, applicability, safety boundaries, conflicts, and the proposed wording in the protected review area. The reviewer must record an identity and reason. Technical review and publication approval remain separate actions; approval never makes a record public by itself.

Why the public snapshot is narrower

Readers see only the fields needed to understand the display, stay within safe external checks, contact the manufacturer or a qualified professional, and return to the exact manual. Private confidence scores, reviewer identities, raw snapshots, and unresolved conflict details are not exposed as public guidance.