42 lines
951 B
Markdown
42 lines
951 B
Markdown
# Review Workflow
|
|
|
|
The Didactopus review workflow sits between draft-pack generation and trusted pack use.
|
|
|
|
## Why it exists
|
|
|
|
Automated ingestion is useful, but draft packs are not reliable enough to trust blindly.
|
|
Human curation is needed to:
|
|
|
|
- fix mistaken prerequisite edges
|
|
- merge duplicate or near-duplicate concepts
|
|
- split over-broad concepts
|
|
- remove weak concept candidates
|
|
- classify concepts by trust level
|
|
- resolve terminology conflicts
|
|
|
|
## Workflow stages
|
|
|
|
1. load draft pack
|
|
2. inspect concepts, prerequisites, conflicts, and review flags
|
|
3. apply curation actions
|
|
4. record rationale in a review ledger
|
|
5. generate promoted pack
|
|
6. preserve provenance
|
|
|
|
## Trust statuses
|
|
|
|
Current scaffold statuses:
|
|
- `trusted`
|
|
- `provisional`
|
|
- `rejected`
|
|
- `needs_review`
|
|
|
|
## Promotion
|
|
|
|
Promotion does not erase provenance.
|
|
The promoted pack keeps:
|
|
- curation metadata
|
|
- source attribution
|
|
- review ledger
|
|
- timestamps and reviewer identity fields
|