Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/tools/content-calendar/qualification/ tool / candidate # Content calendar โ€” qualification The distinct qualification record for Content calendar. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## Record status **Record ID**: tool:content-calendar **Parent lifecycle**: candidate **Page lane**: docs_qualification **Lane lifecycle**: proposed **Owner**: Rebecca **Owner role**: Social media operating agent **Owner status**: Not separately recorded **Qualification result**: NOT RUN ยท held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Tools โ€” overview]() โ€” 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. ### Lane-specific instrument aids No verified instrument is assigned to this qualification lane. ## 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:content-calendar **slug**: content-calendar **title**: Content calendar **owner_agents**: Rebecca **owner_roles**: Social media operating agent **related_jobs**: Social planning; Draft preparation; Asset coordination; Approval routing; Post-performance records **related_field_guides**: Brand voice; Channel rules; Campaign packets; Publication receipts **principal_gates**: Every public post; Account connections; Paid promotion; Direct-message commitments **never_rules**: Self-authorize publication; Invent customer proof; Use an unapproved account **lifecycle**: candidate **source_refs**: agents/index.html#rebecca ## Proposed deterministic qualification tests - Given a new item with a planning brief, the system creates a draft planning record with an identifier and preserves the supplied source reference. - Given missing brand voice or channel rules, the item is marked incomplete and cannot enter an approved state. - Given an unapproved draft, a public-post action is unavailable or deterministically blocked. - Given an account not explicitly approved for the item, account connection or publication is blocked and an authority exception is recorded. - Given paid promotion or a direct-message commitment, the item enters a gated state and requires explicit approval before proceeding. - Given a publication receipt, the system records its provenance and does not infer publication from a draft or plan alone. - Given absent performance evidence, the system displays unknown or unavailable rather than inventing metrics or customer proof. - Given duplicate item identifiers or conflicting approval states, the system rejects the update or creates an explicit conflict record. - Given malformed, oversized, or unsafe asset metadata, the system rejects or quarantines the asset without executing external actions. - Given a user without the required approval role, the system prevents approval, publication authorization, and account authorization actions. - Every user-facing state has a text label, programmatic name, deterministic status value, and accessible error message. - All interactive controls are reachable by keyboard in logical order, expose visible focus, and do not require pointer-only interaction. - Labels, instructions, errors, and status changes are associated with their controls and announced appropriately to assistive technology. - Color is not the sole carrier of approval, blocked, missing, or published status; contrast meets the documented accessibility threshold. - Dynamic updates do not unexpectedly move focus, submit forms, or autoplay motion; reduced-motion preferences are respected. - The interface remains usable at increased text size and narrow viewport widths without clipped controls or inaccessible overflow. - Sensitive fields are minimized, not exposed in public documentation routes, and never rendered into URLs or client-visible logs. - Secrets, access tokens, private account credentials, and unapproved personal data are rejected from ordinary content and asset fields. - Untrusted text is escaped or safely rendered; links and asset metadata cannot execute scripts or alter approval state. - Repeated scheduling, publication, or receipt submissions are idempotent and do not create duplicate external commitments. - The system provides an audit trail for state changes, actor identity, timestamp, and source record without claiming external publication authority. - Claims about implementation, connection, qualification, deployment, authority, customer proof, and current metrics remain explicitly unproven unless supported by a supplied record. ## Negative and abuse cases - Unapproved public publication - Use of an unapproved account - Self-authorized approval or publication - Unintended paid promotion - Uncommitted or misleading direct-message promises - Invented customer proof or performance metrics - Confusing planned, drafted, approved, and published states - Exposure of credentials, private account data, or personal information - Spam, impersonation, harassment, or unsafe campaign content - Asset provenance or licensing ambiguity - Accessibility barriers that conceal gates or errors - Duplicate or replayed publication commitments ## Qualification claim boundary ### Potentially allowed only after evidence and review - The source record identifies Rebecca as owner agent and Social media operating agent as owner role. - The source record associates the tool with social planning, draft preparation, asset coordination, approval routing, and post-performance records. - The source record names Brand voice, Channel rules, Campaign packets, and Publication receipts as related field guides. - The source record identifies principal gates for every public post, account connections, paid promotion, and direct-message commitments. - The source record prohibits self-authorized publication, invented customer proof, and use of an unapproved account. - This candidate proposes documentation pages and deterministic qualification tests for the recorded scope. ### Still held - Implementation exists or is connected. - The tool can publish, connect accounts, run paid promotion, send direct messages, or authorize commitments. - Rebecca or the tool has authority to approve or publish any particular post. - Any customer proof, post-performance result, current metric, provider, deployment, or integration exists. - Accessibility, privacy, security, abuse resistance, source provenance, or qualification has passed. - The tool is production-ready or independently verified. ## Sources and evidence These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment. - `source_record:tool:content-calendar` - `agents/index.html#rebecca`