Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/citation-rules/steps/ field guide / candidate # Citation rules โ€” steps The distinct steps record for Citation rules. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## Record status **Record ID**: field-guide:citation-rules **Parent lifecycle**: candidate **Page lane**: plan **Lane lifecycle**: proposed **Owner**: Socrates **Owner role**: Not separately recorded **Owner status**: Not separately recorded **Qualification result**: NOT RUN ยท held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Field guides โ€” documentation]() โ€” Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held. ## Ordered procedure - Create a proposed field-guide record owned by the designated agent or named human owner; do not treat the native Field Guides route as proof of a connected backend. - State the question, claim set, intended audience, related job, and action boundary before collecting or mapping evidence. - Register each supplied source reference as a source-labelled note or file reference, preserving its locator, origin, provenance, revision, lifecycle, and SHA-256 when present. - Separate source identity from claim interpretation: record the exact claim, its scope, and whether it is a quote, faithful paraphrase, comparison, inference, or unresolved question. - Map every material claim to a precise source locator. If a locator cannot be supplied from the source record, mark the claim unsupported or held rather than filling the gap. - Compare sources only after each source has an independent identity and claim map; record agreement, disagreement, scope mismatch, and missing evidence separately. - Mark uncertainty at the claim level using explicit labels such as supported, partially supported, disputed, not established, or held for review. - Create a to-do for every missing locator, unresolved disagreement, stale revision, absent hash, or required human review. Use dueAt and priority where a deadline is known. - Run the citation checkpoint: confirm that every material claim has a source mapping, every source mapping identifies its origin, and every uncertainty statement is visible beside the affected claim. - Run the provenance checkpoint: confirm that record revisions, source SHA-256 values when available, source locators, attachments, links, and lifecycle state are preserved without claiming database authority or publication. - Submit any consequential citation-quality decision as Needs review in Approvals; local approval does not authorize external publication, provider writes, customer indexing, or production effects. - Append an Agent Log receipt describing the work performed, authority used, held actions, failures, and remaining open loops. - Complete the guide only when all acceptance tests pass, unresolved items are explicitly held or assigned, and the final record remains proposal-only. ## Deadline and chronology rules - If a citation gap blocks a lesson pathway or source comparison, assign a to-do immediately with high priority and a human-owned dueAt. - If no deadline is supplied, do not invent one; use an open-loop to-do with completion state incomplete. - Review citation mappings whenever the source revision, source SHA-256, locator, or claim wording changes. - Do not mark a guide complete while a material claim is unsupported, disputed, or missing a locator unless the item is explicitly held and assigned for review. ## Failure branches during execution - A source locator may be too broad to support the claim; narrow the locator or hold the claim. - A source title or label may be mistaken for evidence; require a locator and provenance instead. - A source hash may be absent or unverifiable; never invent one and mark verification held. - A later revision may invalidate a prior citation; preserve revisions and reopen review. - Paraphrase may introduce interpretation; label interpretation separately from source-supported text. - Conflicting sources may be falsely harmonized; retain disagreement and scope differences. - A local approval may be mistaken for publication or qualification; state that external effects remain held. - A named route may be mistaken for a connected backend; treat routes as prototypes or indexes according to the observed contract. - Sensitive source material may be exposed through visibility or attachments; respect local/private partitioning and do not imply protected storage. - Instrument output may be treated as authoritative; use the checksum verifier only for supplied digest comparison and preserve its educational or verification scope. ## Sources and evidence These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment. - `source_record:field-guide:citation-rules` - `agents/index.html#socrates` - `field-guide:citation-rules:plan` - `Observed native contract: records preserve canonical IDs, origin, source locators, source SHA-256, provenance, revision, lifecycle, tags, links, attachments, and record revisions` - `Observed native contract: PointGuard is a persistent cross-app context surface while specialist apps remain execution and canonical-record owners` - `Observed app route: /app/notebook/field-guides/` - `Observed app route: /app/notebook/notes/` - `Observed app route: /app/notebook/files/` - `Observed app route: /app/notebook/to-dos/` - `Observed app route: /app/notebook/approvals/` - `Observed app route: /app/notebook/agent-logs/` - `Allowed instrument: checksum-verifier`