Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/jobs/tilly-website-claim-review/field-guides/

job / candidate

# Website claim review — field guides

The distinct field guides record for Website claim review. This page is proposal-only.

Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate**

## 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](<https://guthlabs.ai/guth.html#builder>) — 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

- Create a source-labelled claim record containing the exact wording and locator.

- Collect and link available evidence records, file references, citations, and provenance without silently importing unsupported material.

- Run citation checks and compare each material proposition with its receipt.

- Use the relevant instrument packet or field guide only when its exact verified record is available; record assumptions and scope.

- Identify overclaiming, ambiguity, missing evidence, and contradictions; preserve each contradiction as a separate finding.

- Classify the claim as supported, qualified, contradicted, or unresolved and draft a bounded recommendation.

- Submit the recommendation for human or designated approval; do not convert a draft into a public claim.

- Record the review receipt in Agent Logs and leave publication, funding, credential, and cross-agent source changes held.

- 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/`