# Update review and citation checklist

Andrew David W.Y. · G01 companion tool · 19 October 2026

## 1. When to review again

Check relevant claims when new files arrive, originals are corrected, the subject or period changes, contrary evidence appears, approval/effectiveness conditions change, or a new channel is proposed. Arrange periodic reviews as agreed for the project. Set intervals according to document changes and actual use; the template imposes no uniform validity period.

| Entries for this review | Entry |
| --- | --- |
| Trigger date and event |  |
| Related claim identifiers and previous revisions |  |
| Related evidence identifiers, old and new versions |  |
| Scope of this review |  |
| Proposed follow-up, provider and review roles |  |
| Planned and actual action dates |  |

## 2. Compare old and new materials

1. Retain originals and historical checking records; register the new file's source, version, location, receipt date and access scope.
2. Compare subject, period, units, calculation base and conditions. List substantive differences rather than selecting a “final” draft by filename.
3. Check approval, effectiveness and supersession. Mark unsupported matters as unconfirmed; a later date does not automatically supersede an earlier draft.
4. Identify which conclusions the change affects. If only part is affected, specify the scope. Refer matters requiring professional judgment to the relevant role, retaining the version and limits of the resulting opinion.
5. Decide whether to retain the judgment, narrow the wording, add a revision or keep verification pending. Record reasons, checking actions and actual dates. Retain old revisions as history and identify where they no longer apply.

## 3. Trace external citations

Wording used externally must be traceable by claim ID. Record each actual citation location separately; copy the blank fields below as needed.

| Citation record fields | Entry |
| --- | --- |
| Use record ID |  |
| Claim ID and revision |  |
| Actual wording and material version |  |
| Audience, channel and citation location |  |
| Confirming role, authority and approval basis |  |
| Approval date, validity period and conditions of use |  |
| Impact identified and proposed action |  |
| Actual action results, dates and review records |  |

When an impact is found, decide within actual authority whether to review again, suspend use, revise text, replace attachments, withdraw or take other action. Record incomplete work as incomplete. A correction notice sent does not mean all webpages are updated.

A conclusion appearing in text, graphics, summaries, search indexes, social sharing and downloads may need checking at each location. Check where it is actually cited; do not mechanically change unrelated content.

## 4. Can this review be closed?

- Affected claims, documents, revisions and support scopes are linked.
- Unresolved gaps and conflicts remain visible, not hidden by blanks or “confirmed”.
- Follow-up and review roles are marked as proposed or confirmed, with actual actions recorded.
- Intended audience, channel and conditions have a basis; verification and use statuses are separate.
- Record the action result for every location where the statement has been cited; keep unresolved locations on the to-do list.
- Historical files and judgments remain, the current version is identifiable, and next-review triggers are stated.

[Return to blank ledger and instructions](/journal/project-evidence-ledger/materials/en/asset-08.md)