Website claim review — field guides

Record status

Record ID

job:tilly:website-claim-review

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

docs_urls

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Tilly

Owner role

Pointguard and independent reviewer

Owner status

WORKING

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Agent jobs — builder overview — Inspect the package and stage a local project. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

Related field-guide records

• /app/notebook/field-guides/

Source-proposed guide paths are references, not proof that those paths resolve.

Operating sequence

1. Create a source-labelled claim record containing the exact wording and locator.
2. Collect and link available evidence records, file references, citations, and provenance without silently importing unsupported material.
3. Run citation checks and compare each material proposition with its receipt.
4. Use the relevant instrument packet or field guide only when its exact verified record is available; record assumptions and scope.
5. Identify overclaiming, ambiguity, missing evidence, and contradictions; preserve each contradiction as a separate finding.
6. Classify the claim as supported, qualified, contradicted, or unresolved and draft a bounded recommendation.
7. Submit the recommendation for human or designated approval; do not convert a draft into a public claim.
8. Record the review receipt in Agent Logs and leave publication, funding, credential, and cross-agent source changes held.
9. Recheck the claim when evidence, wording, source revision, or deadline changes before any later approval request.

Handoff boundary

• A draft review may be mistaken for publication approval.
• A citation may exist but not support the exact proposition being claimed.
• Incomplete or stale receipts may create false qualification.
• Contradictions may be hidden through selective evidence or softened wording.
• Catalog or route names may be mistaken for connected production capabilities.
• Reviewer independence may be compromised if Tilly approves her own evidence.
• Changing another agent’s source can destroy provenance and exceed authority.
• Sensitive customer, credential, provider, or funding effects may be implied without authorization.
• Accessibility failures can prevent reviewers from inspecting evidence or approval state.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• agents/index.html#tilly
• source_record:job:tilly:website-claim-review
• source record: job:website-claim-review
• observed native contract: PointGuard persistent cross-app context surface
• observed native contract: Notebook records preserve IDs, provenance, source locators, source SHA-256, revisions, lifecycle, tags, links, attachments, and record revisions
• observed native contract: NotebookTodoPayload supports due dates, priorities, recurrence candidates, completion, tags, revisions, and deadline views
• app route: /app/pointguard/
• app route: /app/notebook/field-guides/
• app route: /app/notebook/agent-logs/
• app route: /app/notebook/approvals/
• app route: /app/notebook/search/