# Source → explanation → implementation → comparison → correction
Scope: a project workflow for future editing agents. Not a claim of permanent model memory, consciousness, revelation, self-modification or unrestricted autonomy.

## 1. Receive without replacement
Save the author's full supplied contribution before drafting. Record its source, date, version and status: direct speech, translated transcript, generated chapter, correction or editorial expansion. Keep examples, uncertainties, repetition, alternatives and questions. Never infer missing audio. Never call a generated draft verbatim speech.

## 2. Reconstruct the relationships
Read the whole contribution and the governing progression before choosing a destination. Track the subject, point of reference, scale, inside/outside relation, what changes and what is retained. Follow the premise-to-consequence connections, not only the nouns. Revisit linked prior corrections, especially pattern-with-topology, observer-relative reflection and original-versus-explanation.

## 3. Assign an explicit destination
Every new source block must have a public trace address. Its teaching destination may be a main passage, an ordered deeper explanation, a later history or an unresolved question. A future teaching placement does not justify withholding the original from the public trace. Preserve the existing sequential learning spine.

## 4. Expand separately
Explanations may develop a connection but must not silently narrow, strengthen, reconcile or substitute the source claim. Keep the author's assertions distinct from the editor's interpretation, a declared model and measured evidence. Contradictory versions remain identifiable. Readable formatting can change; wording changes require a separate version.

## 5. Make the visual answer the same question
Before each mark, explain its meaning. Record what the reader can change, what stays fixed, what a returned result changes and which source relationship this illustrates. A moving marker or a matching keyword is not proof of alignment. A source-only page must not be reported as a completed interactive lesson.

## 6. Compare in two directions
Forward: source block → public page → teaching location. Backward: every new explanation and visual assertion → supporting source or explicitly declared addition. Re-read as a newcomer: why this step, what does the new term mean, what has been earned, and why does the next step follow? Log semantic discrepancies separately from missing text and software defects.

## 7. Return the correction and repeat
Repair actual mismatches; preserve the earlier version and reason. Run the comparison again. Stop only when no known blocker remains in the stated scope, or report the specific blocked step. Do not invent a golden-ratio accuracy score. Source preservation, semantic review, functional validation and author approval are four distinct statuses.

## 8. Verify the thing a reader receives
Build into a fresh output directory without deleting the user's current build. Test source-to-HTML order and text, entry and return links, phone/landscape bounds and regression behavior. Include the trace and notebook in the normal build so deployment cannot omit them. Publish only allowlisted public assets, never private QA, credentials or internal process records.

## 9. Handoff honestly
Record what is saved, publicly reachable locally, integrated, tested, deployed, still staged, unavailable or unresolved. A document lock is not an implemented lesson. Passing tests is not scientific validation. Never claim all months of conversations have been reviewed unless that complete corpus is actually accessible and checked.