| Source possession |
The maintainer cannot identify the original source, source owner, permission state, or retention boundary. |
Source runtime, source locator, owner, collection date, permission note, and private resolver. |
| Durable copy |
The only evidence is chat context, a transient tool output, or an unhashable memory claim. |
Immutable copy, checksum, timestamp, source type, and audit location. |
| Scope escalation |
A session or project lesson is being generalized to organization or public guidance without support. |
Original scope, target scope, escalation reason, reviewer, and limitation note. |
| Privacy and redaction |
The candidate contains secrets, private data, regulated data, exploit paths, hidden reasoning, or customer-specific details. |
Redaction checklist, withheld-detail register, reviewer, and public paraphrase. |
| Evidence hash |
The promoted public claim cannot be traced back to a hash, source span, or stable source identity. |
Claim ID, source span, evidence hash, and source-status label. |
| Lane review |
The claim belongs to UAIX, NeuralWikis, NeuroWikis, AIWikis, a source site, or a private repo instead of LlmWikis. |
Authority lane, canonical route, non-normative wording, and external canonical link. |
| SPO claim shape |
The public statement is too broad, multi-claim, unsupported, or untestable. |
Subject, predicate, object, scope, source span, status, and contradiction links. |
| Injection and graph poisoning |
Untrusted source text can smuggle instructions, false graph relations, or tool-use commands into the public page. |
Quoted-source isolation, instruction-stripping note, graph-edge reviewer, and negative fixture. |
| Dependency integrity |
The public claim relies on unreviewed private code, runtime behavior, package versions, or tools. |
Versioned dependency evidence, test note, and support boundary. |
| Error leakage |
The example exposes stack traces, internal paths, tokens, account IDs, vendor tickets, or exploit details. |
Sanitized error pattern, withheld fields, and reviewer approval. |
| Freshness and supersession |
The claim is time-sensitive and lacks a review cadence, last verified date, supersedes relation, or stale behavior. |
Last verified date, freshness rule, supersedes/superseded_by links, and conflict status. |
| Public-safe rewrite |
The draft reads like a transcript, private incident, product claim, or runtime capability claim. |
Rewrite checklist, target route, public audience, and explicit non-claims. |
| Release note |
Users and agents cannot tell what changed or which discovery files must be updated. |
Changed routes, reason, review date, llms.txt/sitemap impact, and rollback note. |