# Community evidence review · M5 initial implementation

The [contribution tool](wiki/contribute.html) prepares a portable, unreviewed draft. It does not upload evidence, establish the contributor's identity, accept/reject claims or publish metrics. References to captures are text; the referenced files must be provided separately through a community-approved channel.

## Contribution contract

Every export identifies the audited executable hash, submission ID and ordered revisions. Each revision contains an alias, claim, command reference (optional), reproduction method, limitations, evidence references, recorded attempt count, units/conventions and explicit conditions. Unknown conditions should be written as Unknown. A source-only correction can have zero attempts; a combat observation requires at least one. This validation is completeness checking, not a scientific quality threshold.

Previous revisions remain in an imported/exported packet. Previewing an unchanged draft does not create duplicate revisions. Editing after preview disables export until the changed draft is previewed. No draft is automatically saved; export before leaving. File import is bounded to 2 MB and 100 revisions.

The initial tool accepts only unreviewed submissions for this build. It cannot certify a claim as Verified or write to the canonical guide. Contributor aliases and revision timestamps are self-reported, not authenticated or tamper-proof.

## Local review decisions

Store decisions separately from submissions. A decision should name the contribution ID, exact revision, packet hash, reviewer, date, verdict, rationale, evidence inspected and independent reproduction result. Allowed states should include needs-evidence, accepted-for-editorial-change, rejected and disputed. Acceptance for an editorial change must not imply a verified numerical gameplay measurement.

Reviewers should check:

1. The build and effective settings match the claimed scope.
2. The action or character/form identity is actually established; a menu ID or filename is insufficient for runtime claims.
3. Evidence files exist and support the claim. Record source/capture hashes and the exact relevant offsets or timestamps.
4. The method states conditions and retains failures, exclusions and contrary observations.
5. Numerical values have established units, precision, timing boundaries and appropriate independent corroboration.
6. The proposed publication is no broader than the evidence. Reject conversion of candidate health fields, script arguments or damage IDs into unsupported move facts.

Keep disputes and superseded decisions in history. A publication change should point to a decision and retain a reversible prior version. The local [reviewer workspace](wiki/review.html) now records and exports those decisions, including revision hashes and supersession history. Local editorial-note publication and rollback are now implemented; see [publication instructions](EDITORIAL-PUBLICATION.md). Live reviewer/browser acceptance and community operations remain pending.

## Next acceptance checks

In a test profile: prepare a correction from a move page; verify its command; enter Unknown for unestablished conditions; preview/export; import and revise; verify prior revision remains; verify changed drafts cannot export without a preview; reject a wrong-build or pre-reviewed packet without losing current form contents. Browser testing remains pending because local-file browser automation was blocked by policy. Pure validation tests do not replace this interaction check.


## Review packet integrity and limits

The reviewer tool hashes the normalized submission and each referenced revision with SHA-256. It rejects mismatched hashes, unsupported verdicts and invalid supersession sequences. This is not a signature: aliases, decisions and timestamps are self-reported and the packet can be rewritten by a file editor. An authenticated review ledger remains future work. Imports are limited to 4 MB and 500 decisions. Export before closing; no review files or decisions are uploaded automatically. A new submission packet starts a new review history.