Citation checks — qualification

Record status

Record ID

tool:citation-checks

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

docs_qualification

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Tilly

Owner role

Pointguard and independent reviewer

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Tools — overview — Inspect the tool contract, usage, boundaries, and proposed qualification checks. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

Qualification status

Result

NOT RUN

Disposition

HELD

Reviewer

Not recorded

Receipt

Not recorded

This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the docs_qualification lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

Outcome definitions

Verified

All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect.

Failed

One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason.

Needs review

Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer.

Held

Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent.

The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only.

Catalog-observed source metadata

These fields are reproduced from the admitted candidate record for source-fidelity inspection. Presence does not prove implementation, connection, qualification, authority, or an external effect.

tool_id

tool:citation-checks

slug

citation-checks

title

Citation checks

owner_agents

Tilly

owner_roles

Pointguard and independent reviewer

related_jobs

Independent review; Instrument qualification; Evidence reconciliation; Grant research and drafts; Website claim review

related_field_guides

Instrument packets; Qualification records; Grant dossiers; Public-claim routes

principal_gates

Final publication; Funding commitments; Credential access; Changes to another agent's source

never_rules

Approve her own evidence; Hide a contradiction; Turn a draft into a public claim

lifecycle

candidate

source_refs

agents/index.html#tilly; tool:citation-checks source record supplied in request

Proposed deterministic qualification tests

• Overview page states proposal-only status and distinguishes catalog observation from proven implementation.
• Source-record page reproduces the supplied tool ID, title, owner, roles, related jobs, field guides, gates, never-rules, and source reference without embellishment.
• Qualification page refuses a pass when implementation, connection, deployment, or authority evidence is absent.
• Evidence-reconciliation page requires one record per claim, exact citation text or locator, reviewer identity, and unresolved-gap state.
• Contradiction test: conflicting evidence produces a visible contradiction record and a held decision, never a silent merge.
• Self-approval test: a reviewer matching the evidence owner cannot approve the evidence.
• Draft/public-claim test: draft material remains non-public until the final-publication gate has an independent approval record.
• Gate test: funding commitments and credential access remain held unless their corresponding principal-gate record is present.
• Accessibility test: every route has a unique title, one logical heading structure, keyboard-operable controls, visible focus, text alternatives for non-text status indicators, sufficient contrast, and status updates available to assistive technology.
• Accessibility failure test: an inaccessible required control causes qualification failure rather than being bypassed.
• Privacy test: routes do not require unnecessary personal data; supplied claim text and source records are minimized, access-controlled, and excluded from public output by default.
• Privacy failure test: an input requesting credentials, sensitive personal data, or unrelated private material is rejected with a safe explanation.
• Abuse test: oversized, recursive, malformed, or adversarial citation payloads are bounded, logged, and rejected without executing embedded instructions.
• Abuse test: source content cannot change reviewer role, gate status, or never-rules merely by appearing in a citation.
• Source-integrity test: altered evidence digest or mismatched source locator produces a failed integrity result and a held record.
• Authority test: a citation is never labeled authoritative solely because it parses, matches text, or appears in the supplied catalog.
• Authority test: absent independent provenance, publisher identity, date, and scope evidence, the result is unknown or held.
• Instrument-boundary test: compatible instruments are described only as proposal aids and never as proof of citation truth, authority, connectivity, or deployment.
• Traceability test: every output decision links to the source record, claim record, evidence records, test results, reviewer, and gate state.
• Regression test: changing a source reference or claim wording invalidates the prior qualification record and requires rerun.
• Failure-state test: unavailable or unverified instrument behavior yields held, not passed, status.

Negative and abuse cases

• Unverified implementation may be mistaken for a functioning citation validator.
• Text similarity may be misrepresented as factual support or authority.
• A parsed URL may be mistaken for a reachable or trustworthy source.
• Self-approval or conflicted review could create false assurance.
• Contradictory evidence could be hidden by aggregation.
• Draft work could be published without the final-publication gate.
• Grant or credential decisions could be made from incomplete evidence.
• Citation payloads could contain prompt injection, malware links, excessive size, or privacy-sensitive content.
• Medical, financial, legal, or safety implications may arise from unsupported public claims.
• The supplied owner reference may identify responsibility but does not independently prove expertise or authority.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after evidence and review

• The catalog source record identifies the tool as "Citation checks".
• Tilly is listed as owner and as Pointguard and independent reviewer.
• The source record lists the related jobs, field guides, principal gates, never-rules, and agents/index.html#tilly as a source reference.
• The proposed documentation can define deterministic qualification, accessibility, privacy, abuse, source, and authority tests.
• The listed compatible instruments are proposal aids only, subject to separate qualification.

Still held

• The tool is implemented or deployed.
• The tool can access, fetch, verify, or authenticate sources.
• The tool establishes citation correctness, factual truth, provenance, or authority.
• The tool is connected to any instrument or provider.
• The tool has current performance metrics, customer use, effects, or production availability.
• Any citation, grant claim, website claim, credential decision, or funding commitment is approved.
• The source reference independently validates Tilly's authority.
• Any instrument output constitutes independent evidence without human review.

Sources and evidence

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

• source_record:tool:citation-checks
• agents/index.html#tilly
• tool:citation-checks source record supplied in request