Review Trial 001

Review Trial 001 #

Purpose: Validate the KRM Documentation review workflow (REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md plus the governing standards stack) against a real Core Documentation page, and leave an auditable lightweight record of the review, the mechanical fix applied, and its verification. This record does not redo the review; it documents what was already performed.

1. Summary #

A pilot acceptance review was run on a Data Reference page using the full governance document stack. The review surfaced one confirmed broken internal link (required revision) and one structural gap (non-blocking improvement candidate), plus three low-impact items recorded as unresolved but not requiring action. Only the required revision was fixed, verified with a Hugo build, and re-checked with the Minimal Acceptance Checklist. A subsequent Codex governance audit judged the review’s procedural design as Pass and its record completeness as Needs revision; this document is the completion of that record.

2. Scope of Review #

  • Primary files: content/docs/krm/02-data-overview/02-03-headword-chars.ja.md, content/docs/krm/02-data-overview/02-03-headword-chars.en.md
  • Related files (summary): KRM landing pages (content/docs/krm/_index.ja.md, .en.md), the 02-data-overview section index (.ja.md, .en.md), and pages that reference krm_headword_chars in prose or links (04-entry-input/04-01-id.*.md, 03-entry-data-model/03-02-types-of-entries.*.md, 04-entry-input/04-02-char.*.md), plus CURRENT_STATE_REPORT.md for the pre-existing known-issue claim
  • Document layer: Data Reference (DOCUMENTATION_BLUEPRINT.md Layer 3)
  • Document type: Data Reference (DOCUMENTATION_STYLE_GUIDE.md §4)
  • Language status: bilingual-required by policy (ja/en pair present); no explicit Page language status front-matter field recorded (see F3)
  • Review level: AI-assisted review — Minimal Acceptance Checklist, escalated to Full Documentation Review Checklist, plus applicable Conditional Checklists (I18N Review, Document-Type-Specific: Data Reference, Glossary and Terminology Review, AI-Assisted Work Review)
  • AI involvement: Full — review, fix, and re-verification all performed by Claude Code in this session; traceable in this record
  • Reviewer: Claude (this session)
  • Review date: 2026-07-26
  • Protected content: Not touched. Column/field definitions and data specifications in the primary files were read and evaluated but never edited.

3. Review Progression #

Minimal → Full escalation reason: the target is Core Documentation (Data Reference), which REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md §5 identifies as warranting the Full checklist. In practice, the Minimal checklist alone detected F1 (broken link) via its “links and navigation” item, but did not surface F2 — the missing cross-references to krm_main/krm_notes/krm_wakun and related rule pages only emerged from the Full checklist’s “links and navigation express meaningful relationships” item together with the Data Reference structure expected by DOCUMENTATION_STYLE_GUIDE.md §4. This confirmed the escalation criterion added real value rather than being redundant.

4. Findings #

Required Revision

  • F1 — content/docs/krm/_index.en.md, line 34. Old link: ./02-data-overview/02-03-headword_chars/. Corrected link: ./02-data-overview/02-03-headword-chars/. Classification: mechanical, Allowed under EDITORIAL_CONVENTIONS.md’s authority matrix (“fix stale links when the intended target is clear”). No confirmation required.

Non-blocking Improvement Candidate

  • F2 — krm_main/krm_notes/krm_wakun and related-rule mentions in the primary files are plain backticked text, not hyperlinks. This is classified as non-blocking, not a required revision, because it does not break navigation (no invalid target, unlike F1) and only falls short of DOCUMENTATION_STYLE_GUIDE.md §4’s recommended Data Reference structure (“relationship to other files,” “related rules”). Deferred as backlog; Allowed-level change, no confirmation required.

Unresolved but Recorded

  • F3 — No Page language status front-matter field on either primary file. Not required now: I18N_POLICY.md §17 does not yet mandate this metadata.
  • F4 — English version uses bold+backtick emphasis (e.g. **\Headwords`**) not mirrored in the Japanese version. Classified as reader-adaptation difference/expression differenceunderI18N_POLICY.md` §10; acceptable audience adaptation, not a data or concept inconsistency.
  • F5 — Commented-out front-matter fields (# bookFlatSection: false, etc.) are a site-wide pattern, not specific to this page; out of this trial’s page-level scope.

5. Maintenance Flow #

detected → recorded → classified as mechanical → assigned under user instruction → reviewed → authorized under existing standards → updated → verified → closed

6. Change and Validation #

  • Changed file: content/docs/krm/_index.en.md (one line, F1 only). No other file was modified.
  • Verification method: hugo --minify --destination <scratch dir> build, followed by inspection of the generated output.
  • Build result: 157 JA pages / 51 EN pages, 0 build errors. The corrected target page (en/docs/krm/02-data-overview/02-03-headword-chars/index.html) exists in the output; the old underscore path does not exist; the rendered link on the KRM English landing page resolves to .../02-03-headword-chars/.
  • Re-check: Minimal Acceptance Checklist was re-run against the single-line diff after the fix; all items returned Pass.

7. Final Review Result #

  • Overall judgment: Pass (post-fix, Minimal Acceptance Checklist)
  • Revisions required: none remaining (F1 resolved and verified)
  • Confirmations required: none
  • Unresolved but recorded: F2 (non-blocking improvement candidate), F3, F4, F5 — all carried forward, none blocking

8. Governance Observations #

  • Evidence recorded at file:line level made it possible to confirm the pre-existing known-issue claim (ROADMAP.md, CURRENT_STATE_REPORT.md) as verified fact rather than assumption, and to distinguish it from a newly surfaced item (F2).
  • REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md does not explicitly distinguish an audit of existing, unchanged content from a review of an active edit; several Minimal Checklist fields (“changed files,” “change summary”) required reinterpretation for this trial.
  • REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md has no standalone conditional checklist for link/navigation review; it is currently covered indirectly through the Minimal/Full generic items and DOCUMENTATION_STYLE_GUIDE.md §8.
  • The initial review output existed only as an in-session report; without a persisted record such as this file, the review would not have been independently auditable — consistent with the Codex audit finding below.

9. Codex Audit Outcome #

An independent Codex governance audit of this trial found:

  • Procedure design: Pass — the review correctly applied the governing document hierarchy, used the Minimal→Full escalation path appropriately, and distinguished required revisions from non-blocking candidates.
  • Record completeness: Needs revision — the review and fix had been reported only in-session, with no persisted, third-party-auditable record under content/docs/krm/governance/. This document was created to close that gap.