Does a longer, well-structured article also mean completed review? Reading the final enhancement script and build order alongside the initial generator led me to separate several responsibilities hidden behind the word finished.
Read the final build sequence
The initial builder alone can suggest a collection dominated by short briefs. A later enhancement step changes the final composition, distinguishing twenty structured articles and forty initial briefs. I read both scripts and their order so the production account would not describe only an intermediate state.
These counts come from the reviewed source structure, not a fresh crawl or rerun of that site. No original program or content was changed. Using work records as story material requires identifying which stage a file represents instead of turning a historical completion sentence into current verification.
Depth does not establish review qualification
Structured means the prose has developed parts and explanations. It does not establish professional assessment of its suitability. The final source retains expert review as not performed. One badge for structured and reviewed would leave readers unable to tell which responsibility was fulfilled.
The new state function accepts depth, source checking and expert review separately. Initial versus structured, recorded source checking and recorded expert review are independent axes. Improving one never automatically advances another, giving content operations a more precise meaning for completion.
Reject unsupported review completion
Recorded expert review requires an evidence reference. Supplying evidence alongside not performed is inconsistent and also fails. The function does not authenticate professional qualifications; a reference’s existence and its adequacy remain separate checks.
Publication authorization stays false for every combination. Content-state data must not silently grant administrative authority. No original login policy was copied. A real system may integrate an existing role-policy module, but a review badge cannot replace access enforcement.
Retain the meaning of each operational change
Turning a brief into structured prose can change depth alone. Revisiting an original source may update its check record. Expert assessment becomes a third event with its own evidence. Even if one save action submits them together, their meanings should remain distinct rather than collapse into one modified date.
The synthetic function has no persistent history. Multi-person operations need separate records of who changed what and on which evidence. It does not already implement the responsibilities of atomic workflow, role or handoff modules. A small contract is useful partly because it reveals those integration needs.
Explain public status candidly
The package’s twelve tests include missing evidence, inconsistent state and absence of publication authority. No actual article received expert review in this task and no unrecorded completion event was invented. The viewer shows new synthetic local results without exposing the client site’s content inventory or name.
I want readers to assess which work an article passed through instead of treating all prose as equally reviewed. Sharing advanced knowledge requires precision about unperformed checks as well as depth. This model exposes the maker’s decisions and gives a later operator a clear starting point.
Publication remains a separate decision
Public review state is not intended to replace the publication decision mechanically. Required review depends on the material and the strength of its claims. The function provides consistent state descriptions only. An actual operator must define publication criteria and confirm the evidence and authority those criteria require. Automating the badge should not automate approval by implication; keeping that boundary explicit also helps another editor understand where their responsibility begins.