WOODLAND-CONTENT-REVIEW.md

Woodland content-review protocol

Status: prepared, not executed Protocol version: 1.0.0 Prepared: 2026-08-02

This protocol defines two independent reviews of the AI-assisted Woodland checklist mapping and action drafts. No reviewer has been recruited or qualified, no review has been run, and no mapping or action has received a human, planner, counsel, or jurisdiction disposition.

The machine-readable review record is data/validation/woodland-content-review.json. Every outcome in that record is intentionally null; both reviewer slots are not_run, and the known completed-reviewer count is zero. Preparing the record is not external validation and does not change the existing prototype_review_pending product status.

Baseline provenance and artifact lock

baseline_provenance records where the blank review package came from. It is not the execution lock and must not be rewritten when a later deployment is frozen. The baseline binds the following content identifiers:

• baseline product commit: 18d6af3b72e83538c32fbad91e43a0c4636652a8;
• workflow woodland-preapproved-detached-adu and mapping version 1.1.0;
• workflow fingerprint sha256:66013f9f75ba247e23ede5241639ee5f443d1b40205a1777565b13418c6b8df5;
• action-draft version 1.0.0 and content fingerprint sha256:3e49650e15f812f4ce0dfc13caa57b0ea9d20649a24b19b79ef4cca1be804787;
• journey woodland-preapproved-detached-adu-synthetic, version 1.0.0, fingerprint sha256:6a7734b8bc920ec13898e2c8c753ce57d27652a5d37c8a41d433798318c4641a;
• City of Woodland checklist digest 59ebf082a59ff257f104a13f75d63faa869565bfdecc33a6e1eba306b4796d62; and
• Yolo County parcel-layer metadata digest 5f99beaf208dc10d8794df0ce1cd3d66f7414ac062d81cbdc018403ef01badb5.

The separate artifact_lock repeats those exact content, journey, and source bindings for the version that may be executed. Its current status is pending, and its execution commit, deployed URL, freeze date, and freeze owner code are all null.

Before either reviewer begins, make one atomic lock transition:

1. verify that the proposed deployment still has every recorded workflow, action, journey, and source fingerprint;
2. change the lock status to locked;
3. record the full 40-character execution commit;
4. record the exact public HTTPS URL used by both reviewers;
5. record the ISO freeze date; and
6. record a non-identifying freeze-owner code.

The root state then becomes locked_not_executed; reviewer slots and all row, cross-cutting, synthesis, and gate outcomes remain blank. Do not combine reviews of different versions. If bound content changes after a reviewer starts, close that run as superseded and create a fresh lock rather than editing the reviewed snapshot.

Evidence-state transitions

The validator accepts only these complete states:

Root state	Artifact lock	Reviewer and outcome evidence
prepared_not_executed	pending; lock identity is entirely null	Reviewer slots are not_run; completed count is 0; outcomes are null.
locked_not_executed	Fully locked with commit, URL, date, owner code, and exact bindings	Reviewer slots remain not_run; completed count is 0; outcomes remain null.
review_complete	Fully locked	Both reviewer receipts, all 25 row decisions, all five cross-cutting decisions, every synthesis receipt, and the computed gate are complete.

Partial locks, partial reviewer receipts, mixed-version commits, populated outcomes in an unexecuted state, and hand-written gate promotions are invalid. Reviewers may work on separate private copies, but the committed execution record is added only when both independent passes and reconciliation are complete.

Reviewer roles

Two people review the same 25 rows independently:

1. R1 must know the Woodland checklist or its permit-intake workflow.
2. R2 may be a California ADU designer, permit professional, intake practitioner, or other professional with recent packet-preparation experience.

Participation by a government employee is individual unless written authority says otherwise. It is not agency endorsement or jurisdiction approval. Record the reviewer, relevant qualification, method, and date only with permission; keep contact information, scheduling messages, and raw notes outside the repository.

Do not show either reviewer the other person's decisions before both independent passes are locked. A repository contributor who drafted the mapping or this protocol cannot fill an external reviewer slot.

Materials

Give each reviewer the same locked materials:

• corpus/woodland/preapproved-adu-permit-checklist.pdf;
• corpus/yolo/public-parcels-layer.json for the two field-binding checks;
• data/readiness/workflows/woodland-preapproved-detached-adu.json;
• data/readiness/remedies/woodland-preapproved-detached-adu.json;
• the deployed synthetic route-to-packet journey; and
• a copy of the blank 25-row matrix without the other reviewer's answers.

Use only public, synthetic, or properly redacted material. Do not introduce a real address, APN, applicant packet, permit number, client file, or confidential jurisdiction record.

Independent review procedure

For every row, the reviewer must inspect the official source passage before classifying either the mapping or the action draft.

1. Confirm the requirement ID and fingerprint belong to the locked workflow.
2. Compare the locator and excerpt with the official checklist page.
3. Evaluate the label, category, item type, parent relationship, and every applicability condition.
4. Evaluate the action separately. Confirm it preserves the source condition, gives only a preparation step or staff question, and does not imply that a document is correct, compliant, complete, accepted, or approved.
5. Mark whether the row contains a blocking content defect and record concise evidence for any proposed change, staff route, or suppression.
6. Complete the non-counted cross-cutting checks for the three-fact applicability gate, both parcel-field bindings, unknown-state behavior, and the prototype claim boundary.

After both independent passes are locked, compare the row dispositions, calculate initial agreement, and reconcile every disagreement. Preserve the initial decisions; do not overwrite them with the final disposition.

Each completed reviewer slot must name the reviewer, qualification summary, method, review date, exact execution commit, and an independence attestation. Each completed row decision must include a source-based evidence note. A changes_required mapping must include the full proposed mapping, and a changes_required action must include the proposed action text. Other dispositions cannot carry a proposal.

Answer key and scoring rules

The record's canonical snapshot is a scoring key, not a substantive claim that the AI draft is correct. There is no human-reviewed answer key yet. The official source and the review method determine the disposition.

A mapping is supported only when all of these are true:

• the source ID, locator, and excerpt identify the reviewed source passage;
• the label does not add or omit a consequential requirement;
• category, item type, and parent relationship preserve the checklist's structure;
• every conditional phrase is represented by the correct fact and value; and
• the mapping does not transform document presence into correctness, compliance, completeness, acceptance, approval, or legal sufficiency.

An action is supported only when all of these are true:

• it stays within the source-backed requirement;
• it preserves conditional or uncertain language;
• it asks staff when the source does not support an affirmative instruction;
• it does not imply eligibility, approval, compliance, completeness, or agency acceptance; and
• it remains a preparation aid rather than a legal or technical determination.

Use these mapping and action dispositions:

Value	Meaning
supported	The locked draft meets the scoring rules without a content edit.
changes_required	The source supports the concept, but the mapping or action needs a bounded correction.
blocked_by_source	Available evidence cannot support a safe disposition.
route_to_staff	The applicant-facing result must remain an explicit staff question.
suppress	The mapping or action must not appear in applicant-facing guidance.

Use none or blocking for an executed blocking-defect decision. Until a review is executed, the entire decision object remains null.

A blocking content defect is any of the following:

• an unsupported requirement or consequential omission;
• an incorrect applicability condition;
• a source mismatch;
• an action that implies approval, compliance, completeness, acceptance, or legal sufficiency; or
• an unknown fact treated as favorable.

For each row, initial agreement is true only when both reviewers independently choose the same mapping disposition and the same action disposition. It is false when either differs. Two reviewers can agree that a defect exists, so initial agreement is not itself an acceptance decision.

Final row dispositions are retain, revise, route_to_staff, or suppress. The synthesis must also record whether a blocking defect remains and a resolution receipt containing the method, known source IDs, resolver code, date, and note. An unapplied revise disposition remains blocking and cannot pass the frozen artifact. Cross-cutting checks use the same logic but are not included in the 25-row agreement denominator.

Thresholds

The content gate requires all of the following before applicant testing:

• two independent qualified reviewers complete every row and cross-cutting check;
• at least 22 of 25 rows receive initial reviewer agreement;
• every disagreement is resolved through better sourcing, a bounded revision, suppression, or explicit staff routing; and
• zero known blocking content defects remain in the frozen build.

The unexecuted gate records the administratively known completion counts as zero and leaves outcome counts and booleans null. A completed gate is derived from the recorded decisions: two reviewers, 25 rows, five cross-cutting checks, initial agreements, disagreements, and remaining blocking defects. It is passed only when at least 22 rows agree and no blocking defect remains; otherwise it is failed. A blank gate must never be described as failed or passed. Agreement below 22 of 25 does not authorize averaging, informal adjudication, or combining a revised version with the original review.

Reconciliation and publication

For a revised row, record the exact changed field or action, source passage, resolution method, responsible person, date, and new version-bound fingerprint. For a staff-routed or suppressed row, preserve the reason. Re-run the repository verification suite after any canonical content change.

Do not promote the aggregate workflow or remedy status from prototype_review_pending unless the completed evidence names the reviewer, method, date, exact reviewed version, and matching content fingerprint. Two individual reviews do not become jurisdiction_approved without explicit institutional authorization.

Permissible language before execution is limited to:

A version-bound two-reviewer protocol and 25-row disposition matrix are prepared. Both reviews and every outcome remain pending.

Do not claim that the mappings were reviewed, validated, approved, accepted, or shown accurate merely because this protocol and empty record exist.