Revision and Impact

1. Identify the contradictory statements or unsupported promise and link their authoritative records. Distinguish deliberate disagreement between witnesses from inconsistent objective facts.
2. Identify the owner: shared Core rule, particular World fact, Narrative account or composition, playable treatment, visual cue, or placed encounter.
3. Propose the smallest correction, its reason, changed constraints and affected works. Content cannot silently rewrite a shared rule.
4. Find consumers through applicable-rule and relationship links, plus a text search for the concept and aliases. Include dependent Core contracts as well as Content. There is no separate impact registry.
5. Review changed causality, chronology, character knowledge, revelations, game consequences and representations as applicable. Record findings with the changed knowledge; retain valid unrelated work.
6. Ask the creator to approve a material change before affected dependent content is final. A proposed correction does not erase earlier available approval or make untouched work invalid.

Do not create facts to hide a contradiction. A newly invented capability must explain why earlier conflicts, institutions or actors could not use it. If the creator wants an intentional unknown, preserve that uncertainty.

Record current conclusions in the owning documents. Conversation and Git retain approval/history; avoid status fields masquerading as canon. Changes to downstream manuscripts or game behavior also feed back through this review.