# Review rubric

Review the complete document after each revision. Do not review only the paragraphs named in the previous findings.

## Deterministic findings

Treat schema validation, required-heading order, Markdown integrity, dangerous commands, metadata leakage, citation mode, required procedure elements, `STYLE002`, and `STYLE003` as deterministic results. Report their exact code and location. Do not reinterpret or downgrade them through model judgment.

## Independent judgment

Assess these dimensions independently:

- reader goal alignment and information architecture;
- logical and causal flow;
- completeness of decision rationale;
- usefulness and status of evidence;
- reader-facing prose and cognitive load;
- example verifiability and operational safety;
- trade-offs, limits, rollback, and open questions.

For Korean technical blogs and READMEs under `korean_first_person_experience_v1`, verify that:

- the opening and major transitions establish supported `저는/제가` experience;
- performed work uses `했습니다` and current behavior uses `합니다`;
- first person represents a real observation, action, or decision;
- unfamiliar terms are explained where first needed;
- every contrast names the components and behaviors that actually differ;
- no personal history, emotion, conversation, failure, duration, result, or rationale was invented.

## Finding shape

Each material finding states the section, problem, reader or safety impact, concrete correction, and severity. A strength never cancels a blocker. Questions identify missing evidence rather than inviting plausible invention.

## Acceptance

Accept only when deterministic lint is within the configured limits, every required independent review completed, the composite score meets the threshold, blocker count is allowed, and `quality-gate.json` records a pass. Mock-provider scores are synthetic fixtures and cannot establish writing or factual quality.