EphemeraAdmin: 1 revision imported

2026-05-12T14:16:46Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 12 May 2026
(No difference)

>Unknown user at 14:16, 12 May 2026

2026-05-12T14:16:45Z

New page

{{Instruction
|id=source-integration-review
|type=maintenance
|applies_to=Any
|task_type=source_integration_review
|priority=high
|status=active
|canonical=true
|requires=Instructions:World Bible,Instructions:Core/Canon Policy,Instructions:Core/Continuity Rules,Instructions:Create/Source/Ingest,Instructions:Context/Assembly
|tags=maintenance,review,integration,source,candidate,queue
}}

== Purpose ==

Given a newly ingested Sources: page and a list of candidate encyclopedia
articles identified by the deterministic candidate discovery system, decide
what action each candidate requires.

This workflow produces decisions and optionally creates Project: queue tasks.
It does '''not''' edit encyclopedia articles directly. Article edits are
performed by the batch processor
([[Instructions:Maintenance/Process Pending Source Integrations]]) after
human or agent review of the task queue.

== When This Workflow Runs ==

* After a Sources: page is created via the ingestion workflow
* When a human clicks "Run LLM review" on a candidate in the UI
* When the batch processor invokes it as part of queue processing

== Inputs ==

The context package for this workflow must contain:

; The Sources: page
: Full content including {{Source}} metadata and Content section.
: Read the reliability and bias fields before making decisions —
a low-reliability source should rarely trigger expansion_needed alone.

; The candidate encyclopedia article
: Full current wikitext, not just the title.
: Do '''not''' assume from the title alone. Read the article.

; The candidate's score and score reasons
: Provided by rank_integration_candidates(). Includes which signals
fired (stub, no_sources, linked_entity, multi_source).

; The candidate's existing agent metadata
: The HTML comment block at the bottom of the article, if present.
: Check last_agent_edit, operation_type, and integration_task_id.
: If an open task already exists for this source+candidate pair, do not
create a duplicate. Update the existing task instead.

; Relevant Talk page editorial notes (if include_talk=true in Config)
: Bias Analysis and Reliability Assessment sections only.
: These may affect the weight given to a low-reliability source.

== Read-Before-Write Rule ==

Before deciding on any action that would create or update a Project: task,
re-read the current state of:

# The candidate article (may have been edited since the candidate was scored)
# The Project:Pending Source Integrations page (check for existing tasks)
# The candidate's agent metadata comment

If the article has changed significantly since scoring, re-evaluate.
If a task already exists for this pair, merge or update rather than duplicate.

== Decision Criteria ==

For each candidate, output exactly one of the following decisions.

=== no_action ===

The article already adequately covers what the source describes.
No update is warranted.

Apply when:
* The specific claims or events in the source are already represented in the article
* The source adds colour or detail but no new factual content
* The source is low-reliability and the article already reflects the established view
* The thematic connection is real but not specific enough to improve the article

'''This is the expected outcome for most candidates.'''
A review session that creates tasks for more than 30-40% of candidates
indicates the confidence threshold is set too low or the scoring is noisy.

=== citation_only ===

The source supports a claim already present in the article but the article
lacks an inline citation for it. Add a ref tag. No content change.

Apply when:
* A specific claim in the article is supported by this source
* The claim is already correctly stated
* The article would benefit from the citation for verifiability

Do not apply if the source is low-reliability and the claim is contested.
A citation from a biased source requires a note, not a bare ref tag.

Output: create a Project: task with action=citation_only, priority=low.

=== expansion_needed ===

The source contains substantive new information not represented in the article.
The article should be expanded using this source.

Apply when:
* The source describes events, details, or context the article lacks
* The information is material — it changes the understanding of the subject
* The source reliability is medium or higher, or multiple sources converge
* The article is a stub and this source could meaningfully develop it

Do not apply if:
* The source is the sole low-reliability source for the claim
* The information is speculative or propagandistic without corroboration
* The article would require a major rewrite rather than an expansion

Output: create a Project: task with action=expansion_needed, priority based on
score (high if score >= 6, medium if score 4-5).

=== citation_with_note ===

The source is relevant but has significant reliability or bias concerns
that must be flagged alongside any citation.

Apply when:
* The source supports or expands the article but is marked low-reliability
or high-bias in its {{Source}} metadata
* The information is worth citing but the citation needs a qualifier
* Example: "According to a MercuryLink corporate advertisement..."

Output: create a Project: task with action=citation_with_note, priority=low.
Include the reliability and bias notes from the source metadata in the task reason field.

=== contradiction_review ===

The source directly contradicts a specific claim in the existing article.

Apply when:
* A factual assertion in the source conflicts with a factual assertion in the article
* The conflict is specific and substantive, not merely a matter of perspective
* The conflict cannot be resolved by noting both perspectives inline

Do '''not''' silently resolve contradictions. Do not choose one version.
Do not rewrite the article to match the source.

Output: create a Project: task with action=contradiction_review, status=needs_human.
Specify the exact conflicting claims in the task reason field — quote
both the article text and the source text precisely.

=== new_page ===

The source names or describes a specific entity that has no encyclopedia page
and is notable enough to warrant one.

Apply when:
* The entity is named and specific (a person, place, organisation, event, technology)
* The entity appears to be significant within the world — not a passing mention
* Sufficient detail exists in the source (or the existing wiki) to write a stub

Do not apply for:
* Generic concepts that do not need their own page
* Entities mentioned only once in passing with no detail
* Entities that are already red links in many articles (those are handled by
the stub generation workflow, not integration review)

Output: create a Project: task with action=new_page, priority=medium.
Include the source page and the relevant passage as context.

=== defer ===

The candidate is related to the source but the decision requires information
not currently in the context package.

Apply when:
* The article references other articles that should be read first
* The source covers a topic where the wiki's canonical position is unclear
* The decision requires human domain knowledge not encoded in instructions

Output: create a Project: task with action=defer, status=deferred.
Note specifically what additional context is needed.

=== none ===

The candidate scored above the threshold but on close reading has no
meaningful relationship to this source.

Apply when:
* The connection is purely thematic with no specific shared content
* The scoring signal was a false positive (e.g. a common word match)
* The article and source genuinely do not interact

Output: no task. Log the dismissal in the provenance metadata.

== Output Format ==

Return one block per candidate in this structure:

<pre>
Target: [[Article Title]]
Score: N Signals: [stub, no_sources, linked_entity, ...]
Decision: no_action | citation_only | citation_with_note | expansion_needed |
contradiction_review | new_page | defer | none
Reason: One or two sentences. Be specific — cite the source claim and the
article state that led to this decision.
Task created: yes / no
Task action: [action value if yes]
Task priority: [high / medium / low if yes]
</pre>

After all candidates, add a summary line:

<pre>
Summary: N candidates reviewed. N tasks created (N expansion_needed, N citation_only, N citation_with_note, N contradiction_review,
N new_page, N defer). N dismissed (no_action / none).
</pre>

== Constraints ==

* Read the full article text before deciding. Never assume from the title.
* Read the source reliability and bias fields. Weight decisions accordingly.
* Most candidates should receive no_action or none. If the majority receive
expansion_needed, the threshold is too low.
* A single source should not generate more than 5 tasks. If more seem warranted,
create the 5 highest-confidence ones and note the rest as deferred.
* Never silently resolve contradictions. Always escalate to needs_human.
* Never create duplicate tasks. Check existing tasks before creating a new one.
* The defer decision is not a failure. Use it when the decision requires
information this workflow does not have.

== Reliability Weighting ==

Use the source {{Source}} metadata to weight decisions:

{| class="wikitable"
! Source reliability !! Effect on decision
|-
| high || Full weight. Apply decisions normally.
|-
| medium || Apply normally but note reliability in task reason for expansion/contradiction cases.
|-
| low || Do not trigger expansion_needed from a single low-reliability source alone.
Apply citation_with_note. Escalate contradiction_review to needs_human regardless.
|-
| unknown || Treat as low. Flag for reliability assessment in the task.
|}

Multi-source convergence overrides single-source reliability constraints.
If three low-reliability sources independently describe the same event,
that convergence is itself a signal worth noting.

== Provenance ==

After completing the review, the calling system logs the following to the
source page's agent metadata:

<pre>
{
"operation_type": "source_integration_review",
"candidates_reviewed": N,
"tasks_created": N,
"decisions": {
"no_action": N,
"citation_only": N,
"citation_with_note": N,
"expansion_needed": N,
"contradiction_review": N,
"new_page": N,
"defer": N,
"none": N
}
}
</pre>

[[Category:Instructions]]
[[Category:Instructions/Maintenance]]

Instructions:Maintenance/Source Integration Review - Revision history

EphemeraAdmin: 1 revision imported

>Unknown user at 14:16, 12 May 2026