These standards convert the audit into a page-level gate. They are deliberately practical: an editor or AI maintainer should be able to decide whether a page is publishable, needs sources, or should remain marked as draft.
Quality classes
| Class | Definition | Minimum evidence | Allowed public posture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stub | Dictionary-level definition, skeletal, or incomplete page. | One source lead or none. | Visible only with a clear needs-work status. |
| Start | Readable lead and sections, but limited depth or uneven sourcing. | At least two reliable references. | Public explainer with caution labels. |
| C | Core sections present, balanced limitations, useful internal links. | Primary or authoritative sources for central claims. | Normal public article. |
| B | Comprehensive enough for most readers, with examples and limitations. | Inline sources for contested or time-sensitive claims. | Reviewed article when date and reviewer trail are present. |
| A | Deep, well-structured, current, and source dense. | Primary sources, surveys, and official docs where available. | Reference-quality page. |
| Reviewed | Human checked for accuracy, neutrality, structure, and source quality. | Last-reviewed date and source audit notes. | Trusted public handbook page. |
Editorial rules
Neutral and formal
Explain the topic without promotion, hype, ridicule, or unsupported rankings. Significant limitations belong in the body, not only in footnotes.
Verifiable by design
Statements about releases, capabilities, benchmarks, safety issues, and provider behavior need citations to official docs, papers, or other reliable records.
No original research
Pages summarize published knowledge. New opinions, private experiments, or model folklore must be labeled as draft notes until source-backed.
Source status visible
Use visible status panels, canonical-source cards, related-link cards, and warning notices so readers can see the evidence boundary before trusting the page.
Claim-level checklist
- Does the page state what the topic is in the first two paragraphs?
- Does every contested or time-sensitive claim have a source close to the claim?
- Does the article distinguish facts, limitations, examples, and editorial interpretation?
- Does the article link to the relevant handbook pages, source policy, and related concepts?
- Does the page have a last-reviewed date and a clear quality class?