Generated from cat-harness/processes/content/review-narrative.bpmn by gen-processes-viz.ts — do not edit here. All processes

Narrative review

Process_NarrativeReview · advisory · 5 step(s)

Judging changed PROSE: read what the mechanical checkers flagged, decide which findings are real, then look at the two things no checker can judge — whether the editorial dependencies still hold and whether a translation still says what the source does.

You are in this process when prose changed. review-code is its sibling for code nodes and review-task is what dispatches to either, so arriving here means somebody has already decided the change is narrative.

Everything this lane produces is ADVICE. The reviewer records findings; accepting or refusing the change belongs to the editor’s lane in review-task. The separation is why a review can be thorough without being a veto.

How it connects

• Called by: Review task
• Calls: Criterion adjudication, Voice overlay review
• Presented on: no docs page section shows this diagram

Lanes — who acts

lane	role	what it does here
Narrative reviewer	narrative-reviewer	Turns mechanical matches into verdicts, not the other way round: qa-checkers-voice.ts, qa-checkers-uses.ts and translation-block-qa.ts produce candidates, and this lane is the only place a phrase-list hit becomes a wrong-register finding, an out-of-genre criterion, a stated exception, or nothing at all. House voice is adjudicated before any activated overlay is even reached, because an overlay adds to the house judgement rather than replacing it.

Steps

Every one of the 5 step(s) is documented.

step	lane	skill / sub-process	what it does
Read the sidecar findings Task_ReadFindings	Narrative reviewer	content-review	Open the block’s .qa.json, not just the evidence line: register is a property of the passage, and the sidecar quotes one line of it.
Adjudicate the voice findings Task_AdjudicateVoice	Narrative reviewer	calls Criterion adjudication voice-editorial-review adjudication	Three outcomes, all legitimate: the register is wrong for this genre; the criterion does not belong in this genre and should carry profiles; or the block is a stated exception and a reviewer entry records why.
Voice overlay review Call_VoiceOverlay	Narrative reviewer	calls Voice overlay review voice-overlay-review	Descend into Process_VoiceReview for whichever named voices the folio has ACTIVATED — the WHO editorial style, the guideline-development register, the publication design conventions, the Milnor exposition standard. No new role is taken on: register is what this lane already judges, and a voice is a register. Placed after the base voice adjudication because a voice OVERLAYS the house voice rather than replacing it, so the house finding has to be settled first. Its own first gateway leaves immediately when no voice is active, which is this instance’s case and the default everywhere.
Review the translation Task_ReviewTranslation	Narrative reviewer	translation-manager	Coverage, preserved terms and echoes are mechanical. A semantic round trip needs a back-translator that has not seen the original; where none has run, the criterion carries no verdict and that is the honest state.
Record findings as advice Task_RecordFindings	Narrative reviewer	content-feedback	A reviewer cannot accept a change — that is the editor’s lane — so the output is findings on the sidecar, not a commit.

Decisions

Every one of the 1 decision(s) is documented.

decision	what decides it	branches
Translated? GW_Translated	Does this block have translations? yes reviews the translation too; no skips straight to the join.	yes → Review the translation no → GW_Join