Proposed editorial standards for the Mystilink knowledge library
These are proposed editorial standards for a Mystilink knowledge library. They require review and adoption by the responsible team before becoming company policy. They do not describe an established moderation program, a historical company practice, or a promise about response times.
The library would help readers study symbolic systems, document readings, and understand the tools they use. Its credibility would depend on whether a reader can inspect a claim and recognize its limits. The following standards turn that aim into decisions an editor can apply to an individual article.
Give every article a clear task
A draft should name the question it helps the reader answer. An article about recording uncertain birth time should explain how to preserve that uncertainty. A historical article should identify the objects or texts that support its account. A product tutorial should show a task supported by the version it describes.
Editors would reject a draft that shifts between these purposes without warning. A historical description does not establish that a predictive claim is accurate, and a product demonstration does not validate the interpretation produced during the demonstration. Each kind of claim needs its own evidence.
The intended audience should affect the level of explanation. Define specialist terms when the reader needs them for the task. Avoid padding an advanced comparison with several paragraphs of general enthusiasm about ancient wisdom or modern technology.
Match the evidence to the claim
Historical statements should cite identifiable scholarship, primary texts, museum records, or other appropriate evidence. The citation should support the sentence attached to it. A source about the existence of an object cannot automatically support a claim about how everyone used it.
An explanation of a symbolic practice should identify the tradition or convention when that affects meaning. Where practitioners differ, describe the relevant difference without inventing a universal consensus. Translation choices should remain visible when they change the argument.
A statement about Mystilink should be checked against the relevant current evidence. Repository code can establish an implementation in that checkout. Release documentation or a tested build is needed for a claim about what users can access in a released version. Proposed features must carry proposal language wherever they are discussed.
Make the status of examples explicit
Constructed teaching examples should be labeled fictional. They must not appear as customer testimonials, staff experiences, or reports of successful predictions. An editor should check the title, opening, image caption, and any excerpt likely to circulate separately.
An example involving a real person would require appropriate permission and a review of identifying information. Permission for a private reading should not be assumed to cover a public article. The team would need a documented process for these cases before accepting them into the library.
A community post can ask a question or demonstrate a disagreement without pretending to represent organic customer activity. Seed material should preserve its teaching or editorial purpose. Published author identities and experience claims must be accurate.
Keep interpretation open to examination
Articles should distinguish supplied facts, calculated outputs, traditional associations, and the writer's own interpretation. The reader should be able to locate the step where one becomes another. Uncertainty belongs beside the affected claim, where it changes understanding.
Personal conclusions should avoid claiming certainty that the evidence cannot support. Symbolic material should not be used to assign medical conditions, determine legal outcomes, or direct consequential financial decisions. A library teaching interpretation needs clear boundaries around what its exercises can establish.
A reader's disagreement should remain possible. An example should not treat rejection as proof that the reading has identified a hidden truth. When a case fails to fit, the author can analyze the mismatch or leave it unresolved.
Require a substantive human edit
AI-assisted drafts would need a human editor responsible for the published text. The editor should check citations and product statements, remove invented detail, and compare the final wording with the evidence. A grammar pass alone would not satisfy this standard.
The prose review should remove repeated conclusions, vague appeals to authority, and advertising language disguised as explanation. Every paragraph should contribute to the article's task. Concrete examples should carry the explanation where they help more than abstract claims.
Cover images also require review. An image should not imply that a fictional case is a real photograph or reproduce a culturally specific object inaccurately while presenting it as documentary evidence. Use captions or labels when the image's status affects interpretation.
Establish a publication decision
The editor would record one decision for each draft: ready for its stated purpose, revise with specified changes, or hold for missing evidence. The record should identify who is responsible for resolving a source question or product check. Proposed standards should become operational only when the team can support this responsibility.
Material corrections after publication would follow an adopted corrections procedure. Until such a procedure is approved, these standards remain a draft framework. A useful next review would apply them to a historical article, a product tutorial, and a fictional reading exercise, then revise the rules wherever the editorial decisions remain ambiguous.