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

job / candidate

# Website claim review — forms

The distinct forms 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**: package

**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.

## Proposed form sections

Each section is a candidate schema for inspectable records. Required-field presence does not establish factual truth.

### Claim intake

Define the exact website statement and its review context without treating it as published or qualified.

- claim text

- page or source locator

- claim owner

- review requester

- review date

- claim status: draft, needs review, approved locally, held

- requested decision or question

### Evidence and citations

Record the receipts used to test the claim and preserve source provenance.

- evidence record IDs

- source URLs or locators

- source type

- source owner

- source date

- source SHA-256 when available

- citation excerpt

- provenance notes

- missing evidence flag

### Qualification checks

Determine whether wording is supported, overstated, ambiguous, or not reviewable from supplied records.

- supporting proposition

- qualification criteria

- instrument or guide used

- scope and assumptions

- unsupported wording

- required caveat

- qualification result: supported, qualified, contradicted, unresolved

### Findings and recommendation

Separate observations from recommendations and preserve contradictions rather than hiding them.

- finding summary

- contradiction details

- severity

- recommended wording

- follow-up owner

- deadline

- escalation required

- reviewer rationale

### Authority and receipt

Make the review boundary explicit and leave a durable audit trail.

- reviewer identity

- authority boundary acknowledgement

- actions taken

- actions not taken

- final-send held acknowledgement

- decision receipt

- approver or escalation target

### Accessible state contract

- Every field requires a visible and programmatic label.

- Required and optional fields must be stated in text.

- Invalid entries require an actionable message linked to the field.

- Blocked and Held states remain visible without relying on color alone.

## Supporting documentation fields

These fields come from the docs_urls lane and remain separate from the primary operating form.

### Review request

Identify the website material and the bounded review requested without implying publication authority.

- request title

- requesting agent or person

- website or document locator

- claim text or claim identifiers

- review reason

- requested completion date

- visibility classification

- source record IDs

### Claim inventory

Separate individual claims so each can be traced and assessed independently.

- claim ID

- verbatim claim

- claim category

- proposed audience

- claim status

- associated page locator

- materiality or risk level

- known dependencies

### Evidence and receipts

Record the source, citation, provenance, and receipt supporting or limiting each claim.

- claim ID

- receipt record ID

- source locator

- source SHA-256 when available

- provenance note

- citation check result

- evidence date

- evidence owner

- contradictory evidence

- evidence gaps

### Qualification and instrument checks

Capture whether an instrument packet or qualification record supports the proposed wording without overstating its authority.

- claim ID

- instrument packet ID

- qualification record ID

- instrument status

- assumptions

- input scope

- output scope

- reviewer conclusion

- limitations

### Review decision and handoff

Make the review outcome explicit and preserve gates requiring another decision-maker.

- claim ID

- decision: supported, qualified, needs evidence, contradicted, or held

- allowed wording

- wording held

- required remediation

- gate owner

- next action

- decision timestamp

- reviewer receipt

## Required or proposed record references

No record existence is asserted by this documentation page.

- source-labelled claim record

- evidence receipt record

- citation-check record

- qualification record

- contradiction or exception record

- review decision record

- Agent log entry

- approval receipt for any escalation

- claim review job record

- website claim inventory

- receipt and citation records

- instrument packet record

- grant dossier record when funding language is reviewed

- approval or held decision record

- agent log entry

## 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/`